[smeggy]

This is for the Stax SR-5 Series but I was wondering if anyone knows if it would work with the 404 as well or if there's something sonically/electrically mismatched to the Lambda series.

Anyone have a clue?

 

[dannyandelyse]

ED1 Far field diffuser is made just for Lamdas

 

[Tachikoma]

IIRC all pro-biased stax headphones can be used with the old normal bias outputs without suffering from any damage. However, getting an ED-1/5 for the 404 seems kinda pointless to me; if I'm not mistaken, the SR-404s are DF-eq'ed internally unlike the older lambdas.

But who knows, the 404 might actually improve with the additional EQ-ing

 

[John Buchanan]

The Professional series don't sound very good when run off the low bias outputs.
There were 3 ED units manufactured - the ED Signature (for the Stax Lambda Signature), the ED-1 (for the Stax Lambda Professional) and the ED-5 (for the SR-5). The Stax SRM Monitor had the ED-1 equalisation and SRM 1 Mk2 Professional incorporated into a single chassis). Apparently they were all manufactured to give a final phase and frequency response from only their matching phones. Stax appears to have abandoned this idea - they gave up the Diffuse Field approach and reverted to the Free Field approach after manufacturing these units. The frequency response of the later Lambdas is not different enough from the originals to suggest that a diffuse field equaliser was incorporated into the phones - more likely most users didn't like the diffuse equalisation and Stax listened to the comments. I think the free field AKG K240s outsold the Diffuse Field version by a large ratio solely because listeners didn't like the DF sound.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Buchanan The Professional series don't sound very good when run off the low bias outputs. There were 3 ED units manufactured - the ED Signature (for the Stax Lambda Signature), the ED-1 (for the Stax Lambda Professional) and the ED-5 (for the SR-5 professional). The Stax SRM Monitor had the ED-1 equalisation incorporated into the chassis of a SRM1 Mk2). Apparently they were all manufactured to give a final phase and frequency response from only their matching phones. Stax appears to have abandoned this idea they gave up the Diffuse Field approach and reverted to the Free Field approach after manufacturing these units. The frequency response of the later Lambdas is not different enough from the originals to suggest that a diffuse field equaliser was incorporated into the phones - more likely most users didn't like the diffuse equalisation and Stax listened to the comments. I think the free field AKG K240s outsold the Diffuse Field version by a large ratio solely because listeners didn't like the DF sound.

See? THANK YOU! I knew I wasn't crazy for liking the ED-1 off better than I liked it on! (It was off, I swear!) With it on, the ED-1 scooped out the mids and thinned the bass and made the highs sound tinny - all of these effects weren't subtle, you could instantly tell that when you pushed the ED-1 button on(or was it off?) the bass came thumping back in, the warmth returned, and the detail was still there - but I have to say, the non-DF isn't as "spacious" and is more forward. But I like it that way since I'm a Grado guy hehe - the ED-1 made it sound a bit too "Sennheiser"y for my liking.

 

[Tachikoma]

Ugh, I hope the ED-5 isn't nearly as bad :/

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tachikoma Ugh, I hope the ED-5 isn't nearly as bad :/

no worries, my personal opinion sometimes differs greatly from others- there are two whole meets-worth of opinions praising the ED-1, so they more than counter my experience.

 

[John Buchanan]

This is the frequency reponse of the ED-1 and it probably speaks for itself! The response goes like this
Flat up to 500Hz
+0.5dB 500
+1dB 600 peak
-0.5 dB 700
-1dB 800
-1.5dB 900
-2dB 1kHz
-3dB ~1.5kHz trough
+1dB 2kHz
+5dB 3kHz
peaks at ~ 3.2 kHz
+4dB 4kHz
+2.5dB 5kHz
-0.5dB 6kHz trough
+1dB 7kHz
+2dB 8kHz peak
-1dB 9kHz
-6dB 10kHz
trough at 11kHz
returns to flat at about 17kHz
The attachment limit is smaller that I can use (I can only shrink it to about double the limit - how do people post the very large pictures on this forum?)

 

[Jahn]

use something like photobucket.com and then just link it or have it displayed by using the yellow picture box option when you post and stick your link in there, and it will show the pic.

 

[smeggy]

I thought the EQ was only part of it, doesn't it do processing to throw the image out of the head a bit like the dolby headphone effects or am I missing something here?

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy I thought the EQ was only part of it, doesn't it do processing to throw the image out of the head a bit like the dolby headphone effects or am I missing something here?

I believe it serves as a fixed EQ function only, no additional processing. However, the way they tweaked it for each can was to test it on a dummy head like the ones from the crazy Binaural Stax Test Tracks.

 

[smeggy]

Strange, those EQ values look downright scary!

 

[John Buchanan]

Have a look at the graph then.... thanks to Jahn for the Photobucket suggestion.
http://photobucket.com/albums/f246/b...urrent=ED1.jpg

 

[smeggy]

Yep, the graph looks scarier than the numbers. A picture really is worth a thousand words.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Buchanan Have a look at the graph then.... thanks to Jahn for the Photobucket suggestion. http://photobucket.com/albums/f246/b...urrent=ED1.jpg

I poofed out the link for you below-

Wow I guess my ears weren't lying - there really is some mid suckage and peaky thin high things happening there! *pats his golden ears!*