Sennheiser HD650 vs. Stax 2020 Basic System: a comparison

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth BTW, in my uber design, I would seek to do away with diaphragm mass altogether and use direct ionic acceleration to move the air. The trick would be to modulate the power supply without distortion and compensate properly to achieve linear response over the whole spectrum. I would design a package similar to the AKG K-1000 in terms of driver placement and coupling. Now, for those of you who have the financial means, I just gave you the next generation ULTIMATE headphone design to build.

I'm interested. How about a group order?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle The Stax tell me what's what with the recordings. If I hear brightness, it's because the top end is tipped up on the recording. Some recordings I've listened to sound dull and rolled off over the Stax. And if you are listening strictly to CD's through the same CD player, the shimmer might be part of that. I came to my basic conclusions by trying out many different vinyl records I knew very well, with a variety of cartridges. But I also found a lot of variance in sound with CD's. But I did not find a common "sound", flavor or frequency balance that I could attribute to the earspeakers themselves.

As stated, it's not really annoying and it's not brightness. It's a typical flavor, heard with all electrostatics so far and with different gear. I have speculated about its cause earlier. I think it's the pressure-chamber effect from the stator grids: the accelerated air gives high frequencies a «kick» and a metallic shimmer -- independent of the final sonic balance. I know this effect from countless experiments with speakers.

 

[philodox]

I just read this thread for the firt time and it kind of makes me want to go at my headphones with a weed-wacker and go live in a monastery or something... people need to relax

 

[Spent&Bent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox I just read this thread for the firt time and it kind of makes me want to go at my headphones with a weed-wacker and go live in a monastery or something... people need to relax

Probably just a side effect of the nearness of the brain to such high voltages over extended periods of time

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazz I'm interested. How about a group order?

ROFL!

 

[gsferrari]

kwkarth - your suggestion is AWFULLY close to the old fashioned pneumatic headphones that were used in aircraft

LOL

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari kwkarth - your suggestion is AWFULLY close to the old fashioned pneumatic headphones that were used in aircraft LOL

I think we're not understanding one another. I'm proposing a completely open, massless, diaphragmless, ionic driven AKG-K1000 like configuration. How does this in any way resemble a stethoscope headphone?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth I think we're not understanding one another. I'm proposing a completely open, massless, diaphragmless, ionic driven AKG-K1000 like configuration. How does this in any way resemble a stethoscope headphone?

Hey, my first headphone that came with my first tape recorder was a stethoscope phone and sounded GREAT! (Just kidding...)

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox I just read this thread for the firt time and it kind of makes me want to go at my headphones with a weed-wacker and go live in a monastery or something... people need to relax

Ditto

For interest the Orpheus was always intended to be a limited production run; the best of the best for Senn and a limited edition. Senn knew, from the outset, that you cannot sell many $10,000 headphones and didn't try. Using a marketing choice to decide "better or worse" is amazing questionable. They produced enough to balance out the books to the point desired, no more.

The point of Marios, myself and a few others is simple. Sennheiser is the headphone manufacturer of choice for this discussion. Apparently not many wish to acknowledge this but Sennheiser did indeed create a uber-phone, one which they (internally) felt represented their absolute best effort to create a wonder. For that headphone they chose electrostatic drivers. Period. HD650 supporters will never seem to acknowledge that choice, by their own manufacturer (please see comments prior to this post). People are NOT saying that the HD650 is garbage. But Sennheiser itself chose electrostatic as their choice of their very finest effort to put out a super-high performance, cost-no-object design. That is an indisputable fact - yet some choose to dispute it, none the less.

Electrostats are not perfect. There is compromise in all designs. But to try to deny that Sennheiser itself used electrostat because they felt it provided the most benefits with the least detriment is illogical. The facts of the Orpheus', and Baby Orpheus', existence is indisputable irregardless, as Marios notes, of their being discontinued. For a manufacturer to discontinue an item is in no way a marker for quality - it has to do with marketing. If you have never been in the industry you do not know how it works, so we must make allowances for that. But in my experience - of many industries - fantastic items of superior quality and desirability have been discontinued...to our utter consternation and outright rude vocalizations.

The manufacturer discontinued it anyway.

It was time to change the product, the production lines, the design, for the market's sake. Lower production cost with a redesign (very common), new "look" for the "New and Improved!" marketing which every consumer just loves, etc. We've done it to ourselves, demanding constant change in consumer products whether or not that change is truly for the better. How many times have you seen a "new" product be worse than the older one??

Many times, I'm sure. I sure have. But the change came anyway.

The Orpheus line was discontinued. It is unreasonable - illogical - to try to use that as an arguing point against them. They were, and still are, a superior product which is what Sennheiser tried to create all along.

This entire thread - and argument - has turned into an ego fight. Neither side wishes to acknowledge that something might be better than the choice they made as a preference and as a purchase. The whole thread - 6 pages - is nothing more than a cockfight of "mine is better than yours". Sorry, but that is the appearance to someone coming in to it from the outside. Very few of the posts have been "on topic" to give the original poster, Beagle, help, assistance or guidance towards his personally perfect choice. Almost all of it has been an argument over what is theoretically better than which, and who prefers what with everything else being...wrong.

Very helpful

I'm calling it as I see it.

 

[pspivak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marios_mar is there anyone here who does not agree that the HD650s with a good amp are more detailed than the lambda series?

Yes, I disagree with the statement. I believe that the Stax are more detailed in terms of inner detail and their ability to play both hard and soft sounds at the same time. I liken their resolution to a high quality microscope with an 50x oil immersion lens versus high dry with oil film. The 50x oil is simply superior to the high-dry in terms of fine detail. I prefer the sound of the Stax, the bass quality, the overall presentation, and their ability to play music. I have heard to HD650's with a tube amp and with a solid state amp (dedicated headphone amps). I simply prefer the sound of the Stax, that is why I have the Stax and not the Sennheiser. I have also used Stax electrostatics since 1975 so I may be sensitized.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake This entire thread - and argument - has turned into an ego fight. Neither side wishes to acknowledge that something might be better than the choice they made as a preference and as a purchase. The whole thread - 6 pages - is nothing more than a cockfight of "mine is better than yours". Sorry, but that is the appearance to someone coming in to it from the outside. Very few of the posts have been "on topic" to give the original poster, Beagle, help, assistance or guidance towards his personally perfect choice. Almost all of it has been an argument over what is theoretically better than which, and who prefers what with everything else being...wrong. Very helpful I'm calling it as I see it.

Snake,
I think you've unjustly painted this thread with a very broad brush. I do not feel my posts in this thread fit your description at all. Please show me the error of my ways.
Thanks,

 

[marios_mar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth Snake, I think you've unjustly painted this thread with a very broad brush. I do not feel my posts in this thread fit your description at all. Please show me the error of my ways. Thanks,

Your posts indeed were full of arguments and not lame comments. You did anser serisously to my points as well. I really do not think he is refferring to you.

Although your signature above your avatar suggests that you would be one of those people LOL!!!!!!!


Quote:

Moderator: Insulting his K-1000's would begin the Battle of Karthage

 

[Czilla9000]

I have never heard of any "treble etch" in my Stax system.


Actually, the first thing that impressed me about my Stax system was the bass...

I am less thrilled about using electrostat technology in loudspeakers, due to their bidirectional nature. I remember that John Dunlavy wrote an article attacking electrostatic technology. Most of his arguments seemed to me to be speaker specific (I don't think they matter with headphones), since most of them centered around the bidirectional nature of e-speakers. Basically, bidirectionality is not good for accuracy. However, he had lots of respect for Quad because they have taken some drastic measures to eliminate many of the problems with electrostats.

 

[tourmaline]

I've owned quite an expensive stax rigg.
tube stax amp en lambda pro's etc.

spending a lot on good cables also.(pure silver cables).
I also own(ed) alot of sennheiser headphones. including the hd650.

all i can say is that the stax sounds fine, even very good(for me, it had a problem in the midrange-lower bass section). the hd650 sennheiser sounds even better to me, it does not have the lower bass problem and sounds more involving. i also feel(hear) that my hd650 setup is not at it's full potential. i think, driven with a very good amp, the hd650 setup can outperform my old stax setup wich cost alot more. I even invested in an expensive modification for the stax amp(black gates, expensive pot etc).
however, i still could hear the lower bass problem, so it has to be the amp design or a limitation of the lambda pro.
I ended up selling the expensive stax rigg and started experimenting with dynamic phones.

I can understand however, why someone likes the stax. i also like very detailed sound. The sennheisser does all that but even more in the involving part and as far as i can hear has no problems with all frequencies at all.

i also owned a grado RS-1, wich was even a little more involving but sounded to harsh for me in the upper part and has , compared to the sennheiser, quite some coloration. maybe i have to try the PS-1 someday. apparently it has the detail of the grado 325 and the drive of the sr-1 and it lacks the harshness of the sr-1 in the upper range. this might be a very nice combination.

I think i can make quite a clear statement about any system, since i owned alot of headphones for a long period of time.

I go for the dynamic phones with good amplification. The only stax that can beat the top dynamics is probably the omega 2 with a good amp.

you gotta have an open mind and listen to alot of different setups and headphones to even be able to pick the right phones for you.

I also cannot clearly state if one is better then the other: all phones have their own specific pros and cons.
for neutrality and detail the stax is superb, for speed and bass the stax lack.


different tastes, different equipment.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake The point of Marios, myself and a few others is simple. Sennheiser is the headphone manufacturer of choice for this discussion. Apparently not many wish to acknowledge this but Sennheiser did indeed create a uber-phone, one which they (internally) felt represented their absolute best effort to create a wonder. For that headphone they chose electrostatic drivers. Period. HD650 supporters will never seem to acknowledge that choice, by their own manufacturer (please see comments prior to this post). People are NOT saying that the HD650 is garbage. But Sennheiser itself chose electrostatic as their choice of their very finest effort to put out a super-high performance, cost-no-object design. That is an indisputable fact - yet some choose to dispute it, none the less.

Take it easy, man! AFAIK nobody has claimed electrostatics be worse than dynamics. Or the HD 650 be better than the Orpheus. It's a matter of preference. From my perspective the advocates of dynamics have rather to deal with absolutistic claims as to the principal superiority of electrostats. Well, I know of a few people here, including myself, who have found a new appreciation for dynamic headphones after being electrostatic users for many years. It may have to do with the fact that dynamic headphones are becoming better, whereas the sonic progress with electrostats has slowed down. However, there are many sonic aspects to be liked with dynamic headphones, quite the same as with electrostats, and I'm not really taking position, just following my present preference when I choose the HD 650 as my main headphone instead of one of my electrostats or going for the Omega II, e.g.

As to Sennheiser deciding for the electrostatic principle: As some others have stated, at the time of its launch it may have been the only way to achieve the high goals with sound quality. But why is the Orpheus superior to other electrostatics? Primarily because it uses an advanced electrode design improving one of the main issues: the reported (by some) compression effects caused by insufficient air permeability. IIRC its electrodes consist of gold-plated glass for high stiffness and low resonance susceptibility with at the same time a relatively large hole-surface area in relation to the electrode's total surface, enabling clearly higher air permeability, hence less acceleration of the air molecules during the grid passage with the consequence of less treble accentuation. Also the reflectivity of the electrodes shouldn't be underestimated and probably plays its part with the perveived (by some) slight metallic coloration. The electrostatic-inherent electrodes still remain an issue, just in a milder occurence. But given the other principal qualities of electrostatics plus the financial backup minus the impact issue, this makes for the best headphone ever -- to the ears of most listeners.


Quote:

Electrostats are not perfect.

Exactly! So it's absolutely justified preferring dynamic headphones without being called an ignorant with no clue about which are the real values. (I'm not referring to you, but someone else.)


Quote:

This entire thread - and argument - has turned into an ego fight. Neither side wishes to acknowledge that something might be better than the choice they made as a preference and as a purchase. The whole thread - 6 pages - is nothing more than a cockfight of "mine is better than yours". Sorry, but that is the appearance to someone coming in to it from the outside. Very few of the posts have been "on topic" to give the original poster, Beagle, help, assistance or guidance towards his personally perfect choice. Almost all of it has been an argument over what is theoretically better than which, and who prefers what with everything else being...wrong.

Come on! You're overstating quite a bit!

And has Beagle ever called for assistance since he decided for the 2020 system? No, he was raving, and with this he certainly needs no assistance. If at the same time he was a bit too absolutistic with his statements, the corresponding reactions were deserved.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth Moderator: Insulting his K-1000's would begin the Battle of Karthage

I like your uber design suggestion. Would be nice to patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspivak I believe that the Stax are more detailed in terms of inner detail and their ability to play both hard and soft sounds at the same time.

I think you've nailed it with this statement.