[gilency]

[size=small][size=large][size=xx-large][size=medium]This poll is reserved only to SR-007 owners who have heard both and have had the time to compare them[/size][/size][/size][/size]

[size=medium]Correction: the poll is for the MK1 vs Mk2[/size]

I am relatively new to the Stax world and have been captivated by electrostatics. I am not really interested on any dynamic cans at this pont.
I am planning on buying the SR-007 by Christmas with a better amplifier to follow when the wife allows it.
I have poured through Stax threads here, Audioasylum and Headwize, as well as comments in Audiogon and can't make my mind as to which version to buy.
My question is: which version of the SR-007 is better?
In spite all the available information, there seem to be strong feelings regarding one version or the other.
Spritzer and many other very knowledgeable guys find the Mk2 is not up the SR-007 standards. On the other hand, there are also others who think the Mk2's are better, including a good review by Darth at Audioasylum: General Asylum: REVIEW: Stax SR-Omega vs. SR-007(Omega2) Headphones by darth

Please explain a rationale for your choice also. Thanks!

The following quotes came from this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/wha...k1-mk2-420311/
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually there are four (4) different models. Where the SR-007 and SR-007BL are often referred to as MK1, while the SR-007A and SR-007MK2 are referred to as MK2. 1997-2007 * SR-007 -> Brown leather/cable and champagne housing (picture) * SR-007BL -> Black leather/cable and champagne housing (picture of my pair) 2007- * SR-007A -> Black leather/cable and silver housing (picture) * SR-007MK2 -> Black leather/cable and black housing (picture) There are audible differences between the MK1 and MK2 (I have been told), and some prefer one while others prefer the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif SR-007 and SR-007BL are identical except color SR-007A and SR-007Mk2 are identical except color The Mk1 and Mk2/A are more similar then not but the Mk2/A introduces a midbass hump, lacks bass clarity and has a rather nasty if subtle midrange coloration.

 

[TheAttorney]

gilency, the Darth review is comparing the original Omega with SR-007, which he called the Omega 2, but it's now known as Omega 2 mk1 when it was revised in 2007 to the current O2 mk2. Your question/poll is comparing O2 mk1 with O2 mk2, so the Darth review is irrelevent. You're not the only one who finds the various Omega/007 names confusing. I've only got the O2 mk1, so can't take part in the poll.

 

[DavidMahler]

I haven't heard both and thus did not vote, but I do know somebody who has heard both, and he prefers version 1 by a large margin

 

[Uncle Erik]

I didn't get much time to compare the two, but I liked the Mk. 1 enough to buy a pair. Also, I think Spritzer has a mod or two to bring the Mk. 2 more in line with the Mk. 1.

 

[GuyDebord]

The small difference I heard was in the mids, the mk2 have a fuller midbass, tones are slightly rounder in those frequencies which for some make the bass less defined, for me it made those frequencies more rich and bodied without loosing them outside the range of neutrality, to my ears the mk1 sounded slightly drier in that end. I found the differences very subtle, but I preferred the render of the mk2, I also could easily live with the mk1.

 

[vcoheda]

i didn't think the differences were that great. not sure which i prefer.

 

[l1f35ux]

This thread is interesting. I too want to know how big the difference is; I have heard only mk I.

 

[WilCox]

I own both the MK I and Mk II Omegas but did not vote because I like them both.

Yes, there are subtle differences between the two, as others have pointed out, but I find the voicing of each to be a valid approach to create a credible reproduction of the original musical event. Both are capable of getting me deeply engrossed in the music.

As a side note, the preference for one or the other may be swayed by the amplification chosen. For example, the Mk II does not work as well with the SRM-007t as it does its older brother, sounding a bit dark and slow with the Stax tube amp. However, mate it with the SRM-717 and the results are stunning!

I have not heard either with Justin's BHSE or Woo's WES, but I hear that these amps make the Omegas truly sing!

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAttorney /img/forum/go_quote.gif gilency, the Darth review is comparing the original Omega with SR-007, which he called the Omega 2, but it's now known as Omega 2 mk1 when it was revised in 2007 to the current O2 mk2. Your question/poll is comparing O2 mk1 with O2 mk2, so the Darth review is irrelevent. You're not the only one who finds the various Omega/007 names confusing. I've only got the O2 mk1, so can't take part in the poll.

Thank you for your explanation. I was confused.
What I really wanted to ask is the Mk1 vs Mk2. Sorry if I created more confusion. I am not interested in the original Omegas since I know they are harder to find and more expensive. However if anybody thinks otherwise they could compare it to the other 2.
Thank you all for your comments and keep them coming.....

 

[spritzer]

The differences are slight but compared to the Mk1's near blank canvas, the Mk2/A has some clear colorations. The reason why I like the SR-007 (and SR-Omega too) over the other electrostatics is their ability to impart very little of their own character on to the music. They can be bass light, bright and with no soundstage to speak of or pummel your head with deep bass and cast a huge soundstage if that's what the recording calls for. The Mk2/A can do this as well but just not to the same extent since they will always add a slight etch to the midrange and the bass hump is always present.

As for the mods, yes they will make the Mk2/A sound more like the Mk1 or rather close to eliminate those pesky colorations. Stax did alter the drivers a bit so the Mk2/A will always be a tad more forward.

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I own both the MK I and Mk II Omegas but did not vote because I like them both. Yes, there are subtle differences between the two, as others have pointed out, but I find the voicing of each to be a valid approach to create a credible reproduction of the original musical event. Both are capable of getting me deeply engrossed in the music. As a side note, the preference for one or the other may be swayed by the amplification chosen. For example, the Mk II does not work as well with the SRM-007t as it does its older brother, sounding a bit dark and slow with the Stax tube amp. However, mate it with the SRM-717 and the results are stunning! I have not heard either with Justin's BHSE or Woo's WES, but I hear that these amps make the Omegas truly sing!

Thank you. Your comments make it even harder to decide between the 2!

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif The differences are slight but compared to the Mk1's near blank canvas, the Mk2/A has some clear colorations. The reason why I like the SR-007 (and SR-Omega too) over the other electrostatics is their ability to impart very little of their own character on to the music. They can be bass light, bright and with no soundstage to speak of or pummel your head with deep bass and cast a huge soundstage if that's what the recording calls for. The Mk2/A can do this as well but just not to the same extent since they will always add a slight etch to the midrange and the bass hump is always present. As for the mods, yes they will make the Mk2/A sound more like the Mk1 or rather close to eliminate those pesky colorations. Stax did alter the drivers a bit so the Mk2/A will always be a tad more forward.

I think you are one of the most knowledgeable (if not the most) person to give a valid opinion regarding electrostatics. Thank you.

 

[Mister Crash]

I have both a well-used Mk I and a fairly new Mk II, and I spent a couple hours tonight comparing the two on the SRM-727II amp. It may be that the Mk II hasn't been broken in completely, but I found the sound of the Mk II to be a little too thick in the bass. The Mk I is quite neutral, with no particular emphasis in any part of the frequency range. The Mk II is a little boomier, almost to the point of discomfort for me. They are both open headphones, but the Mk I feels more open and less confining than the Mk II.

 

[chi2]

Have and appreciate both. When I first got the MKII I was severely disappointed. They were too forward for my gusto and lacked deep bass. Worst of all, they were uncomfortable to the point of being unbearable

as the elastic band was too short and unelastic for my large noggin. I changed the band and heavily bent the arches. The result was stunning. Great fit, no more leakage, deep bass right there. The MKII are still a bit more forward in the high frequency range and they have slightly more mid and less deep bass than the MKI. My preference, however, depends on the music and mastering of the recording. In a forced choice approach I'd probably take the MKI but I'd miss the MKII.

 

[earlinarizona]

I listen to a lot of pipe organ music so weight is important. In my lifetime I have owned 3 sets of Stax headphones many years ago and remember them fondly. The situation is that I will be taking multiple cruises in the near future and taking my Macbook and my hight def recordings with and the Minerva 24/192 firewire DAC. The only question is do I get the Sennheiser and use the output of the Minerva to drive the headphones or get a full tube amplifier with the Stax. One is easy to transport and the other setup is over 40 lbs. Is the difference even worth it. Keep in mind the Minerva DAC has a lot of power to drive the HD800's and no outside amplifier is needed.

 

[loputreyu]

Ñïàñèáî.  ýòîì áëîãå êîììåíòàòîðû õîòü íîðìàëüíûå.. À òî ïèøóò îáû÷íî â êîììåíòàðèè åðóíäó âñÿêóþ.