Stax Signature and Omega 2 Quick Impressions

[shivohum]

I had a chance to demo the Stax Signature 4040 and the Omega II briefly today. I ran both off first a 717 amp and then an 006t (the amp that comes with the 4040 system). I used only a limited range of source material, but I'll give you my rapidly assessed and likely shallow conclusions

.

The system in which these headphones were heard consisted of an old but expensive Accuphase CD player and interconnects.

Major points of interest

* These expensive electrostatic headphones are very far from perfect. They are not the best thing since sliced bread, and they have distinct weaknesses.

* First, the main strengths. Of course, both headphones are amazingly fast, and reproduce instruments with speed and control. The unique sound of each instrument is produced extremely well; the unique sound of the acoustic environment is also produced peerlessly.

* The most important weakness is that the sound on both is thin; it lacks body. Timbre and tonality is perfect, but the body is definitely lacking. You "hear the music," but it lacks solidity and a motivational energy of its own.

* The Signature is downright bright, especially with the 717 amp, and I can imagine that it would become fatiguing in long-term listening.

* In addition to being bright, the Signature also has that infamous treble etch, the same that I heard on the Stax Lambda Pro. This treble etch gives a sort of electronic, synthetic cast to all recordings.

* The Omega II is darker than the Signature, and it seems like this darkness is at least a partial remedy for the aforementioned lack of body, although it does seem an artificial coloration and it does not seem as open on the top end as the Signature. I heard this affect horns, for instance -- they did not sound as clear and resounding on the Omega II.

* The Omega II does not suffer from treble etch, nor is it bright.

* The Omega II's soundstage as a whole seems more closed in than the Signature.

* Both headphones are not particularly wonderful at conquering the blobs-in-head feeling that headphones tend to deliver.

* Both headphones are experts at making a recording sound like a recording: that is, they are so revealing of the recording that any chance you have at believing that you're hearing a live performance is destroyed. On the other hand, that extremely revealing nature shows all the emotional nuance a performance is capable of showing along with the warts.

* Both headphones do vocals quite well, and both present vocals in a light and ethereal way. The verbal articulation on both headphones is phenomenal. But the Signature especially suffers from an etch on the voices, a kind of hyped up breathiness that is distracting and unnatural.

* Both headphones, and especially the Omega II, reproduce piano wonderfully clearly. On the other hand, it is again lacking in body.

* I was not impressed with the build quality of either headphone. The Signature was light and plasticky, and the Omega II, although more solid, still is not what one would expect from an object of its class.

* Both are moderately comfortable, though they tend to get hot around the ear.

* Both headphones tend to make music more elegantly beautiful and less viscerally involving than the dynamic headphones I've heard. There is a definite difference in style.

 

[daveemac]

Hi Shivohum--

I have a stan warren modded 333 also. Do you think it's all it's cracked up to be?

I'm really hoping I like the Stax more than you seemed to.

Do you like electrostats in general, quad speakers for instance?

 

[shivohum]

Hi Dave. I really like my modded 333. Admittedly, I haven't heard *any* CDP in an A-B with it, but from the few experiences I have had with other CDPs in demos, the 333 is superbly engaging, just excellent. I've heard the Sony SACD-1, Marantz SA-1, Meridian 588, Cary 303 -- albeit none of them in my system.

I guess the key thing for is that I don't see anything that can beat a modded 333 anywhere in the modded 333's price range. Moreover, even the very expensive high-end units that I've heard really had some of the digital flatness that all CD players have, and it didn't seem to me that the 333 really fell short in these areas.

Please don't get me wrong about the Staxes. I wanted to emphasize their weaknesses here because their strengths are so trumpeted. If you want detail, the ability to handle musical complexity, timbral purity, speed, clarity, and these types of virtues, Stax is by far the best on the market.

And I certainly wouldn't mind living with Omega IIs -- even as my sole pair of headphones

. But they are not perfect, and perhaps not even the most enjoyable, depending on your tastes. I am glad that I was able to listen to them, because now I know just how much less-than-heaven they are

. They are, after all, just another headphone.

As for electrostatic sound in general, the few speakers I've heard share this sort of thin quality to them, but I've basically only heard a few pairs of Martin-Logans. No quads, sorry.

 

[Calanctus]

Shivohum, thanks. I switched from a pair of electrostats (Koss) to dynamic phones in an effort to get away from what I now know is excessive brightness and treble etch (did not know those terms then, I just knew I did not like all that I was hearing). I discovered body and fullness in headphone sound...but I've been wondering if I can combine that with the amazing response and distortion-free volume that electrostats provide. It seems that, even with the Omega IIs, the answer is probably no.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

I discovered body and fullness in headphone sound...but I've been wondering if I can combine that with the amazing response and distortion-free volume that electrostats provide. It seems that, even with the Omega IIs, the answer is probably no.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. However, the tubes on the 006t did help with the body on the Omega II (at the expense of some bass and dynamics), so I suspect that the 007t would be even better. So if you're set on electrostatics, that is certainly something to try out.

 

[Tomcat]

shivohum,

your comments about the Omega II's sound are spookingly close to my impressions. I too find the Omega II lightning fast and very transparent but lacking in body and heft. Listening to it is indeed an "etheral" experience, "beautifully elegant" at times, but lacking "visceral involvement".

I have visited the "High End" show on Friday, this is the largest exhibit of high-end consumer audio gear in Europe. I once again listened to the Omega II driven by the 007t tube amp and compared it with their new closed monitor headphone, the Stax 4070. The source was a Sony X77ES as I recall. The closed 4070 has a slightly less ghostly and etheral presentation than the Omega II but it's still an electrostatic headphone and doesn't touch dynamic headphones in terms of visceral realism. At the same time, the 4070 has less of this intriguing airiness and speed of the Omega II: slightly more body, but definitely less elegance.

It seems to me, that the electrostatic Koss ESP 950 is a valid alternative to the Staxes. I listened to it shortly after I had tried the Staxes and my impression was that the Koss had a somewhat richer midrange. Then again: it still was far from the visceral bass and lower midrange reproduction very good dynamic headphones are capable of.

One last comment: to me, the lack of heft and body is a problem that affects tonal qualities and that compromises timbral accuracy. You seem to feel different, shivohum. But this is probably more a question of semantics than of differences in perception.


Calanctus,

to me, the Audio Technica ATH-W100 has transparency that equals and maybe even surpasses that of electrostatic headphones (in terms of musical structures at least), yet it is capable of reproducing instrumental bodies and bass frequencies in a very realistic and 3D-fashion.

 

[setmenu]

Hi
I run a 4040 system [Sigs+006 amp] .
This etch term people use rather confuses me.
I agree they reproduce a hell of a lot of detail.
Is that 'etch' present when listening to a vinyl source rather than
CD?
Partnering equipment can make a big difference with these phones.
I use an Arcam CD23 and Siltech 4-120 cables with mine.
In fact when I first got my setup it took some time to get the
cable chioce right for my sonic preferences.
I have ended up with something with a super open well extended
top end ,may be a bit too well lit for some recordings but it does
a lovely job with cymbols etc .
The bass extension is excellent big and open with nice ambient
bass response.

My experience with dynamic phones is pretty limited to Beyer
931s and various Planarmagnetic designs with a touch of Grados
top end model thrown in for good measure.

I enjoy all these phones equaly but the Stax is my main listening
reference[I bet those grado will be added to my stable at some
point when I do a suitable amp yum..nice those little woodies]

While I would agree the Stax could do with at times a 'meatier'
sound they have good body and I would not realy describe them
as 'thin' sounding.

I think dynamic phones can sacrifice some of the more subtle points of a recording to provide that meat at times[in my limited
experience].

My own experiences with headhone transducer design have been
very enlightening with respect to frequency peaks and troughs
and their effect on the percieved sound.
Having a pair of headphones which one is constantly experimenting with certainly teaches you to really appreciate the
efforts of those manufactures who are actually striving for perfection,and how subjective that goal is.

I love my Stax setup and 95% hugely enjoy on every listen.

One thing though...nobody mentions this,, they do creak a bit when you move about[especially lying down] .
Its the plastic to plastic contact on their construction.
Only a very minor gripe for me but with quiet music it can
be noticable.

I suppose my advice for anybody who is interested in Stax is to
try to get as long an audition as possible[beg borrow steal a pair]
because if the elactrostatic sound is new to you ,you will find
youself looking for the sonic cues you are used to [good and bad]
so they COULD sound bass light,bright,thin etc at first glance.
But if you value subtlety , delicasy etc they will surely appeal.

And yes you certainly hear the recording allright!
After all you are listening to one.

Ultimately though there is only one answer to all this............

Buy lots of different headphones,hoard big time

Setmenu

Team flat driven all over thingies

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

One last comment: to me, the lack of heft and body is a problem that affects tonal qualities and that compromises timbral accuracy. You seem to feel different, shivohum. But this is probably more a question of semantics than of differences in perception.

Well, I guess the analogy that might explain this would be that on the Stax you hear the kind of sound you might get in the back of the concert hall, except that the soundstage perspective is normal (not all that distant). When you sit in the back of a concert hall, you definitely lose some warmth and body, but the timbre of the instruments can still be heard... the Stax reproduces instruments in a much more detailed fashion that one would get by sitting in the back of a concert hall, but it shares the lack of warmth and body, and it shares the fact that in the two locations (headphones + back of concert hall) the true timbre of instruments can be reproduced, albeit in a thinner sort of way.

Quote:

This etch term people use rather confuses me. I agree they reproduce a hell of a lot of detail. Is that 'etch' present when listening to a vinyl source rather than CD?

Hrmm... Darth Nut, someone who is a Stax Omega 2 owner , described it this way:

"Treble etch is a very fine metallic texture overlaid on the sound of instruments. The first time I heard it, I thought 'Wow! So much detail!' But actually it wasn't real detail, it was some kind of added texture."

This texture is part of what makes the 4040 sound like a headphone reproducing music, instead of live music. The etch makes the music sound over-detailed, sometimes in the wrong places, a little too forced and a bit artificial. It struck me in my listening that this "extra detail" sometimes makes voices, among probably other things, sound unnatural, too. You can really hear the difference in this respect with the Omega.

This treble etch is the same that I heard on the Stax Lambda Pro I used to own. That treble etch was there even with vinyl, so I suspect that this is true of the Signature too.

Quote:

Partnering equipment can make a big difference with these phones.

That's probably true, but I don't believe in good partnering equipment generally changing the basic character of headphones. It's possible that with some special equipment the Omegas and Signature will transform into rich warm headphones, but I doubt that such equipment is very neutral.

Quote:

I have ended up with something with a super open well extended top end ,may be a bit too well lit for some recordings

Yes... too well lit. Well said

Quote:

I think dynamic phones can sacrifice some of the more subtle points of a recording to provide that meat at times[in my limited experience].

I think that's true, but that is the trade-off, and I think for many people it may be worth it.

Quote:

One thing though...nobody mentions this,, they do creak a bit when you move about[especially lying down] .

You're absolutely right. I forgot to mention this.

Quote:

I suppose my advice for anybody who is interested in Stax is to try to get as long an audition as possible[beg borrow steal a pair] because if the elactrostatic sound is new to you ,you will find youself looking for the sonic cues you are used to [good and bad] so they COULD sound bass light,bright,thin etc at first glance. But if you value subtlety , delicasy etc they will surely appeal.

Well I think the Signature is thin and a bit bass-light. But still, if you value subtlety and delicacy, etc. they are definitely things you need to consider. I felt the same way about my Stax Lambda Pros, which have in many ways quite a similar sound to the Signature, even after many weeks of listening.

 

[Calanctus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat to me, the Audio Technica ATH-W100 has transparency that equals and maybe even surpasses that of electrostatic headphones (in terms of musical structures at least), yet it is capable of reproducing instrumental bodies and bass frequencies in a very realistic and 3D-fashion.

That's encouraging, since I may very soon own a pair. Also plan to get the EMP to drive them....

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Ultimately though there is only one answer to all this............ Buy lots of different headphones,hoard big time

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Matt]

Though the Stax sound is not hardly my "pet sound" at the moment, I can say that they do seem to me to be very synergy-dependant/system-dependant. I had mine hooked directly into my DVD-A player; the sound had less body, less definition, less intimacy, etc. (whereas it sounded great with an EMP and W100's). I added a DI/O + Stancor, I got big improvements (body filled out a bit more, a heaping helping more presence, a fair deal more transparency, soundstage widened considerably laterally, etc.) I added a Monster power unit, even more improvements: treble refined greatly, soundstage further improved, transparency improved, etc.

My impressions so far with regard to the W100 equaling or surpassing the transparency of the Stax's is that the statement is very true, to a finite extent. However, I have used the W100's on the aforementioned equiptment and have used it on higher-end CD transport/DAC combinations and certain aspects of it just stagnated regardless of what I plugged it into (i.e. I felt that no matter where I went, it was not markedly improving the problem, if it did anything at all). The particular issues were, for one instance, in some older Gladys Knight recordings, Gladys' voice was just...sorta...ragged around the edges and it just teetered over on the side of annoying, aggravating and perceptually fatiguing (sitting there wanting a reasonable facsilmile of the actual performance).

With the Stax's, on the other hand, while the going got off to a rough, unpleasant start, they are starting to sound better than the EMP/W100 combo for the things I like, which are female vocals (I like a natural, smooth-by-being-perfectly-detailed delivery, amongst other qualities), jazz instrumentals (you should hear a trumpet or violin! Holy sheesh: most satisfying reproduction I've ever heard, bar none, by far) and other things.

The Stax's have now slightly surpassed the W100's in terms of sheer enjoyment, because of their delicate resolution of the overall musical picture, their terribly unfatiguing general electrostatic character, their delicate and oh-so-delicious timbral resolution, etc. They are at or are extremely close (but still less compared) to the W100's in my most important quality, transparency.

The burn-in process has been extremely gradual (far more so than the W100's) and I don't have 500 on them yet, but I'm approaching that. My feeling is that most of the ****ty parts of the sound are due to the amp, being a solid state, mid-range, $300 = $400 (Japanese retail) unit. That's pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you say?

The bass, which started out thinner, has rounded out and gained detail, focus and, most importantly, punch; the midrange has smoothed out; transparency, while surprisingly not as great as I thought it'd be considering the electrostat principle, is increasing (I am increasingly able to turn the volume down with no appreciable loss in clarity, emotional projection, etc., which is excellent...I'd hate to get into the Grado syndrome of feeling compelled to turn the volume up to extract more friggin' transparency), etc.

They are, to me, the Electrostatic HD600's: Requires Great Back-End to Really Shine.


- Matt

 

[kelly]

Matt

I propose that when you added the ART DI/O to your system, you did not make some kind of subtle "component matching" horizontal trade to create "better synergy." Rather, you upgraded in class. The ART isn't a different flavor of your previous source's class, it's a higher class altogether. A vertical upgrade.

As I mentioned, argued and fought for in a seperate thread, I believe in this simple theory: "Most people seem less happy with transparent front ends when the source and amplifier components aren't as good." The Stax, not unlike the HD600, can be made to sound both really good and really bad. The W100, with its heavy coloration coats less appealing sources with a "flavor" some people find rewarding. When the source itself isn't well liked, extra flavor doesn't seem like such a bad idea. As you move up to a source you actually like, coloration becomes more of an obstacle to you getting to the sound of that source.

I imagine you would be surprised how much you could like the HD600 with a good amp on a source you actually like. The Stax is unquestionably another step up in accuracy and transparency (though we could argue that they have other flaws).

As for the "cheap amp" comment about the Stax--while I don't really know what goes on on the insides of a Stax amp, what I do know is that when I sat there comparing the 007/007t to the EAR HP4/HD600 at the Headroom tour stop, I wished like hell that EAR or someone else made a good amp for the Stax. The 007t was very obviously a bottleneck to the 007 earspeaker. Not having "option" for amplifiers is very much a Stax deterrent. It's frustrating to have a glimpse of how good it could be and then be blocked by something so simple. Maybe in a couple of years if I have not cured myself of this obsession, I will build the Kevin Gilmore Stax amp.

 

[Vertigo-1]

Quote:

One last comment: to me, the lack of heft and body is a problem that affects tonal qualities and that compromises timbral accuracy.

I've thought about this one the last couple of nights...and the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems that neutrality and timbre body/accuracy can co-exist (unless one thinks neutrality=timbre accuracy, but I don't think they're quite the same. In a perfect world they would be though.). It's a tradeoff game as far as I've heard in the reproduction world. I'm starting to think components that contain both either just don't exist, or are ungodly expensive. Right now I'm more convinced that they don't exist.

 

[Matt]

Hi.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you, Vert, on these general, "X vs. Y" issues: the perfect system with the perfect combination probably doesn't exist. I just got back from the Orlando HeadRoom stop (which was fabulous beyond belief; thanks Tyll!) and I got to listen to...well, you know, and walked away with that conclusion.

On the high end rack, there was some material that a certain combo would do way better than others and some that didn't sound so good or vice versa. Most of the time, for me, the best (meaning most musical and musically satisfying) overall experience went to the Orpheus, but there were times when it was edged out and was imperfect and less satisfying. For instance, I've now seen the HD600 light and have heard their true potential on the Blockhead; they certainly held their own against stiff competition. The Blockhead is an amazing piece of work and totally in a whole other class over many, many, many other amps, to my ears. Just about the solid state Orpheus in terms of musical satisfaction.

The Stax Omega II's were great, but less musically satisfying, in a holistically-speaking way. Without getting into all the terms, they were less complete, musically, and overall less satisfying.

My strong conclusion was that the Holy Grail lies exclusively in the world of the perfect form, and we can only hope to try to de-crude-ify our systems as best we can to try to emulate that. Or buy an Orpheus, Blockhead system and Omega II system and leave it at that.

- Matt