[audiod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, I would expect the Behringer A500 (BEHRINGER: A500) to sound the same as something other (krell or whatever) that has similar specs to power some speakers that get into what the amps can feed power to, regardless of their price/brand.

You obviously haven’t been in high-end audio long. A product specifications do not tell you how a product will sound. This was a topic back in the late sixties and early seventies. No audiophile thinks this anymore. Better specs do not mean better sound. Many tube amps have poor specs and sound great, many SS amps have great specs and sound terrible. Comparing a pro sound Berhinger to a Krell is an insult to Krell. Enough said.

As for the 252 driving the O2. It will drive it and the sound is not bad, but the potential of the O2 is not realized. The potential of the O2 is so high that starting out with a entry level amp doesn’t make sense. And again forget the specs! Use your ears.

 

[bjarnetv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to add one more thing, how come the recommended amplifiers by STAX not be enough to drive their own headphones they designed? People say even the BH is not enough? Then what is it? Are STAX wrong?

yes... their best amp for the sr-007 was the 717, which they replaced with the inferior 727 for some reason (probably cost cutting).

as i said in the stat amp thread; stax (or at least the old stax company) knows how to make high end amps, but they tried once, and it failed miserably.

 

[wiatrob]

Forgive my jumping into the middle of this thread after lurking for so long.

These are interesting bits - these questions of power and performance have come up in internal discussion during the design of a DIY, lower cost, higher performance Stat amp (colloquially known as the Poor Man's).

I think the nail has been hit that 'driving well' may be the last 5% of performance - which many ears may never hear:

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif snip But I gradually realized that there are a lot of subtleties to good sound that require specialized and expensive equipment.

As for the justification of the 'moar' needed for superlative performance, Duggeh's paragraph about impedance swings was as good an explanation as I have heard (and I have heard that from others during design conversations.) Although there well may be no technical explanation. It could just be mojo...

Not to threadjack - but it will be interesting to see how the XPM (the latest incarnation of the Poor Man's - which has excellent performance in sim) will be received by those on this forum who can hear the difference. If it works.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audiod /img/forum/go_quote.gif You obviously haven’t been in high-end audio long. A product specifications do not tell you how a product will sound. This was a topic back in the late sixties and early seventies. No audiophile thinks this anymore. Better specs do not mean better sound. Many tube amps have poor specs and sound great, many SS amps have great specs and sound terrible. Comparing a pro sound Berhinger to a Krell is an insult to Krell. Enough said.

Oh really? So better specs (things that companies have tried to do and keep trying to in order to give a better piece of equipment) doesn't mean it is a better product? The last sentence where you compare "pro" equipment vs some "audiophile brand" is a vague comparison. We are not talking about the name or the price they have, we are talking about the electronics they have and how they perform physically. If you want to be able to listen to music through your speakers/headphones, a design has to be implemented to a product. It has to be measured so that it gives you a good output signal.

Quote:

As for the 252 driving the O2. It will drive it and the sound is not bad, but the potential of the O2 is not realized. The potential of the O2 is so high that starting out with a entry level amp doesn’t make sense. And again forget the specs! Use your ears.

But some say it is not good, or is it?

You see, different opinions keep contradicting what the other one has said. Some say it does not sound good, other say it does without problems, without distortion. What should we believe? The one who says it simply is a "no-go" or the one who thinks it sounds pretty decent (if not good)?

 

[kintsaki]

The Headfiers who own the O2 along with the super amp it takes to show its full potential (that extra 5-15%) are probably less than a dozen.

First it was the T2 then the KGSS then the BH then the BHSE and of course the Egmonds, Mc Allisters, Single Power and so on. But the quest for the amp that will drive the O2 to its full potential is still on.

Electrostatics used to be the fastest phones but had their shortcomings too. A lot of people do not like them and many more think they need that super amp to make them sound to their liking. And of course it make take you an afternoon or two to learn to bend the arcs of the O2 to angle them properly to obtain the proper seal and if you are still not satisfied you may have to replace the pads just in case the old ones have lost their elasticity.
And then you must get properly recorded and mastered albums because the average recording will not sound good on them.

But there are normally priced phones that are way faster and have greater acceleration than stats without the planar problems.

It is all a matter of perspective. A musician, a recording engineer, a music lover that listens to live music more often than he does listen to recorded music, an "equipment-file" maybe kind like an "audiophile" and an electrical engineer or DIY hobbyist.

I have been in the shoes of all of the above with the exception of the musician.

At the end of the day I must agree with "Bullseys's"
saying in his signature which i added to mine.

 

[The Monkey]

Bullseye and Kintsaki, you've written a lot of words and have said very little. What's your main point? To be honest, I don't think that the statement in your sigs, "When the audio equipment takes priority over the music, the way the music sounds is more important than the sound of the music," actually means anything.

Can you succinctly state what it is you are trying to say? Try it in two sentences or less.

EDIT: I realize the above might sound obnoxious. That is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand the point(s) you're attempting to make.

 

[Duggeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to add one more thing, how come the recommended amplifiers by STAX not be enough to drive their own headphones they designed? People say even the BH is not enough? Then what is it? Are STAX wrong? Is a thousand dollar piece of equipment not enough either -their own amps cost that much-? I see there is something wrong here.

Short answer: Because it isn't a profitable business decision for them to build more powerful amps than they already build.


Longer messier metaphorical answer: For the same reason that Alba don't make a 1000watt monoblock and instead make all-in-one hi-fis. You've got to market to the widest posible range within your customer base at the lowest production cost and the highest mark up in order to extract the maximum amount of milk from the cash cow customer.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh really? So better specs (things that companies have tried to do and keep trying to in order to give a better piece of equipment) doesn't mean it is a better product?

Did you even read my last response to you on the matter of nominal specifications? If not, go back and read it. If you did, then go back and actually understand it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif The last sentence where you compare "pro" equipment vs some "audiophile brand" is a vague comparison. We are not talking about the name or the price they have, we are talking about the electronics they have and how they perform physically.

Ye gods. Different brands with different products with the same nominal specifications WILL perform differently depending on how they were designed. Again, this has been explained already with reference to the ability to cope with a difficult load. You've not read the explanation about this and have failed to respond to the questions on the matter which I put to you.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want to be able to listen to music through your speakers/headphones, a design has to be implemented to a product. It has to be measured so that it gives you a good output signal.

What does this even mean? That you've got to design something before you can build it and from the design you can know the specifications? And?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif But some say it is not good, or is it? You see, different opinions keep contradicting what the other one has said. Some say it does not sound good, other say it does without problems, without distortion. What should we believe? The one who says it simply is a "no-go" or the one who thinks it sounds pretty decent (if not good)?

It seems to me that you're simply not listening and that you're pouncing on differences in semantics from different people on this question in a desperate attempt to get just one person to say:

"The SRM-252 and the O2 sound absolutely brilliant together. Those who buy bigger amps are wasting their money because electrostatics are easy peasy to drive because they need no current".

So in answer to your question: Believe whatever you want to think is the easy, cheap answer, because that's clearly what you're determined to do.

 

[Duggeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bullseye and Kintsaki, you've written a lot of words and have said very little. What's your main point? To be honest, I don't think that the statement in your sigs, "When the audio equipment takes priority over the music, the way the music sounds is more important than the sound of the music," actually means anything. Can you succinctly state what it is you are trying to say? Try it in two sentences or less. EDIT: I realize the above might sound obnoxious. That is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand the point(s) you're attempting to make.

"When the audio equipment takes priority over the music, the way the music sounds is more important than the sound of the music,"



This is mangled piece of psudo-philosophical garbage which uses two different phrases which both mean the same thing and then compares them with one being bad and the other good. But I'm putting the way it sounds down to somebody who doesn't use English as a first language trying to be a little too clever.

What it perhaps should say is:

"When the equipment takes priority to the music, the technical connection displaces the emotional one."

And even then it doesn't do much except poorly state a facet of audiophilia. You'd need to add in something more specificly bad or good to make it actually praise or condemn one or the other kind of listening.

 

[audiod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh really? So better specs (things that companies have tried to do and keep trying to in order to give a better piece of equipment) doesn't mean it is a better product? The last sentence where you compare "pro" equipment vs some "audiophile brand" is a vague comparison. We are not talking about the name or the price they have, we are talking about the electronics they have and how they perform physically. If you want to be able to listen to music through your speakers/headphones, a design has to be implemented to a product. It has to be measured so that it gives you a good output signal.

Like I said before, you have no experience in High-End audio. Good designers engineer for good sound not just good specs. I do not want to continue this subject on the Stax thread.

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audiod /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said before, you have no experience in High-End audio. Good designers engineer for good sound not just good specs. I do not want to continue this subject on the Stax thread.

Well part of the reason some of us are skeptical that headphone amps make a HUGE difference in sound quality comes from experience in home audio. At least 10-20 independent trials have been published, including a summary review in JAES, that essentially pointed to the inability of people to distinguish between loudspeaker amplifiers when not aware of the identity of the amplifier. When it comes to headphone amplifiers, the cheapest ones (i.e. built in to a receiver) have measured problems with frequency response with difficult loads, so yes, they CAN make a difference. But once you get into the amps that are above CMOY quality, then I am not confident that the differences are as dramatic as people report.

What's also concerning is that people seem to be under the impression that engineers design products so that they sound good. These people have apparently never talked to an engineer. Engineers design products so that they measure well. That's their job. Usually, these measurements are in areas that correlate with, but do not guarantee, accurate sound reproduction. For instance, someone designing an amplifier circuit doesn't listen with headphones and says "sounds too bright, I think I'll tweak this resistor here." However, he might measure the noise floor and improve power supply isolation if there was excess noise, for example. And then once the engineer's design comes out, it'll certainly get modified to keep costs low, and there will be compromises and parts substitutions that are mandated by other departments.

HOWEVER, I am unaware of any listening tests with electrostatic headphones. I'm hoping somebody can explain why the loads that draw such miniscule current require high-power amplifiers? Perhaps the capacitative load is difficult to drive accurately? I do not doubt that others have heard differences among stax amps...but i also do not doubt that nobody is willing to let themselves believe that a $300 amp belongs in the same room as the SR-007's.

 

[kintsaki]

I wrote an answer to your question and then I saw some posts come in and decided to hit delete and say no more.

After all this is the Stax thread and not a General Discussions Lounge thread.

People may believe what they want to believe based on the boundaries of their knowledge, experiences and age.

the sort answer to your question on my post is

I was attempting to answer the question
"is the O2 really good? if so why some people don't like it"

and yes I am not particularly thrilled with it as I do not own the right amp for it to voice my opinion.

 

[wiatrob]

I am quite interested in the bit of this discussion that deals with what it takes to make a superior amp for the high end 'stats (AND, just as important, those who own them and buy such amplification). Might we move it somewhere - a Stax Amp thread was mentioned?

 

[Elephas]

People are certainly entitled to their opinions. But there are better-informed opinions than others, and for me the opinions based on more experience are more useful.

The O2 is a very good headphone. I'm one of those who thinks it doesn't sound very good with the 007tII, but it doesn't sound bad either. Given the budget and the choice, I might go for an HD800 + dynamic amp instead of the O2 + 007tII combo.

But if the budget permits, the O2 with say, a HeadAmp KGSS is a superb listening experience. Matched with a good source, of course. The O2 has qualities that other headphones struggle to match, such as refinement, smoothness, imaging precision, and details.

I think that criticism of the O2 is fine, it's not like it's some perfect thing that we must worship. I've criticized it plenty myself, it has weaknesses like any other headphone. But do it from experience, with respect for those who have more experience, and not with insinuations of how some "music lovers" are superior to "gear lovers" or other personal and unfounded judgments of this type.

 

[Keithpgdrb]

=Yawn= start a sub forum.

 

[progo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh really? So better specs (things that companies have tried to do and keep trying to in order to give a better piece of equipment) doesn't mean it is a better product?

My former sound card ESI Juli@ had a THD rating of less than -110 dB, but the Electrocompaniet ECD-1 only has ~-100 dB. Still it sounds better.

I believe you may have a point in looking at the specs when judging the quality, but what can we actually see from a couple of numbers? We should have very accurate testings of THD, FR and other numbers because impedance (among other variables) doesn't "stay" constant during playback. One generalization (ie. 300 Ohm for a headphone or -120 dB for THD) doesn't make anything but a very general approximation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif You see, different opinions keep contradicting what the other one has said. Some say it does not sound good, other say it does without problems, without distortion. What should we believe? The one who says it simply is a "no-go" or the one who thinks it sounds pretty decent (if not good)?

Everyone has their opinion on a good sound, so you should believe in your very ears only.