STAX GAMMA (non-pro) - vs. - STAX SR-X mk III (non-pro)
Jul 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 45
d.phens

d.phens

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
342
Likes
13
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which do you think sounds better?


P.S.

Logically SR-X mk III or Stax Gamma should in no way sound better than current SR-202 because of membrane size and thickness and shape as well as higher bias BUT as far as most of us know they do sound better! WHY?

Thanks!
 
Jul 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM Post #2 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by d.phens /img/forum/go_quote.gif
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which do you think sounds better?


P.S.

Logically SR-X mk III or Stax Gamma should in no way sound better than current SR-202 because of membrane size and thickness and shape as well as higher bias BUT as far as most of us know they do sound better! WHY?

Thanks!


They sound pretty different but the SR-X will always loose this comparison due to the crappy cable. They use the same driver btw. I have an SR-X modified with the original OFC flat cable, the same as the Gamma uses and the Gamma is more colored due to the housing. This gives both the midrange and top end a slight etch to it but it isn't very noticeable. The Gamma has more bass and top end but it isn't as tightly controlled as the SR-X. The SR-X has it's own problems, limited response and a pretty annoying boxed in midrange. Both are great headphones but the Gamma is more fun and peaky while the SR-X is more natural and flat.

The Lambdas are "better" headphones but they have their own well documented problems. A 1.35um film isn't better then a 2um film, I prefer the thicker one because it is much more musical but that is just my preference. You should really try the original SR-Lambda because it was designed to be better then the SR-X and it delivers, in spades.
 
Jul 21, 2007 at 8:25 PM Post #3 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by d.phens /img/forum/go_quote.gif
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which do you think sounds better?


P.S.

Logically SR-X mk III or Stax Gamma should in no way sound better than current SR-202 because of membrane size and thickness and shape as well as higher bias BUT as far as most of us know they do sound better! WHY?

Thanks!


I think the SRX3 does some things really well, in particular great dynamic detail. I find it fun to listen to for that characteristic. Its main failing is weak low bass and for that reason I think most people would prefer a Lambda design. I don't know the 202 but I have a Lambda Nova (pro) and Lambda 404 and on balance they are better than my SRX3.

I think Spritzer is right about membrane thickness, it is not automatic that a thinner membrane will sound better. There are issues about how the whole design is made.
 
Jul 21, 2007 at 9:49 PM Post #5 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think Spritzer is right about membrane thickness, it is not automatic that a thinner membrane will sound better. There are issues about how the whole design is made.


There is a reason why Stax took a step back from the 1um film of the Lambda Signature when designing the Sr-Omega. The thickness of the film does also effect how and how much it is tensioned a thin film isn't always preferable. I believe that the He90 would be a much better phone with a slightly thicker membrane.
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 2:20 PM Post #6 of 45
How thick could be SR-X mk.III's membrane?
And how about the Gamma?
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 2:55 PM Post #8 of 45
Really? Back then such thickness was rare as I remember Micro Seiki and Sony stuff having membranes over 5um thick...
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 3:03 PM Post #9 of 45
I tried to like the SRX and have had different sets 3 separate times since the 70's when they cost as much as a good used car.

They are so detailed and really present a window on the recording as well as a tool to analyze your system. However, I just cannot get past the lack of bass that can make music sound thin and voices sound shrill.
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 3:08 PM Post #10 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by d.phens /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Really? Back then such thickness was rare as I remember Micro Seiki and Sony stuff having membranes over 5um thick...


In the 60's maybe but by 1976 the 2um was quite common but some designers decided against using it for some reason especially in speakers. Micro didn't use mylar but the same same material as is used in plastic bags (can't remember the name). This had some dire consequences as very few samples are still alive today with their original diaphragms.

Quad used 3.5um for the tweeter panel of the ESL back in 1956 so the 6um film Stax used in the SR-1 (released in 1960) was used by design, not necessity.
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM Post #11 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbonner1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I tried to like the SRX and have had different sets 3 separate times since the 70's when they cost as much as a good used car.

They are so detailed and really present a window on the recording as well as a tool to analyze your system. However, I just cannot get past the lack of bass that can make music sound thin and voices sound shrill.


I do prefer the SR-Lambda because they addressed the limitations of the SR-X and SR-Sigma and came up with a set that is better overall then either one.
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM Post #12 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Micro didn't use mylar but the same same material as is used in plastic bags (can't remember the name).


Polyethylene. Mylar is a type of polyester.
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM Post #13 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Polyethylene. Mylar is a type of polyester.


Thanks for that. I think this "getting up at 3:20 business" is getting to me.
blink.gif
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM Post #14 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Micro didn't use mylar but the same same material as is used in plastic bags (can't remember the name).


Plastic bags are mostly made of PET (polyetylene)...
 
Jul 22, 2007 at 7:45 PM Post #15 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by d.phens /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Plastic bags are mostly made of PET (polyetylene)...


PET is polyester I'm afraid to say, so you've been missinformed. Normal PET is used in soft drink bottles, but the molecules are arranged differently from how they are in Mylar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top