[spritzer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Second point is that it's a bad idea to parrot Kevin Gilmore, particularly when he's talking about something that competes favorably with one of his own designs. I've compared the ES1 to the Blue Hawaii on several occasions, using both HE90 and Omega II (as well as others). The Blue Hawaii is definitely not in the same league as the ES1 in regards to air and detail. You want transparency, go with the ES1. Justin's latest BHSE is the best version of the amp I've heard, and is the only one that approaches the finesse of the ES1; but it's not all the way there yet. WRT the ES1 being a 1968 Stax design: don't believe everything you're told. Kevin Gilmore writes fiction at times, with just enough "fact" to make it seem plausible. If true, then based on my experience KG's best publicly released design can't approach a 1968 Stax design in terms of both power and transparency. That would be sad, but since I believe that the KGBH is better than the Stax amps I've heard, I do think Kevin has designed some nice Stax amps. It's a shame that he can't give credit when someone designs a better amp than his. After reading his posts in another forum, I honestly believe that he has no real understanding of just what the ES1 is or how it works (beyond some obvious basics). It's not a Stax design, despite some topological similarity.

You must always take a designers word with a grain of salt but with Mikhail you need a whole bag of the stuff. The latest channel crap on that Squarewave joke (no PSU reservoir and those nice electrolytic output caps

) is just the latest in a long line of flat out lies meant to impress those that believe he has any idea what he's talking about.

As for the rest of the post... I don't want to argue with you but none of the SP amps are designed by Mikhail so why should the ES-1 be any different? I've seen plenty of pictures of the ES-1 insides and it does use the SRX design though somethings are changed due to the different tubes used. Just compare the two and PM me if you need the schematic of the Stax amp. That amp is by no means a bad choice to build from tough and why it was also used by HE Audio for one of their prototypes and there are other manufacturers that using it as a starting point. Caps today are very good and some even prefer the sound of CC compared to all DC amps but if Mikhail was actually competent he would have used a better PSU then that crappy RC job and thrown in a beefy CCS for each channel to make sure that there is enough current on tap when the impedance drops. He could even have built them properly but that just didn't happen. Instead we have this massively overpriced (wasn't there a 50$ markup for the use of Cardas solder, as if he would need a whole spool for one amp...) amp with no reliability whatsoever and extremely poor service.

As for not understanding the design... that's just silly.

Open it up and look... there isn't much there and certainly no "tricks".

 

[Faust2D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my (limited, and at a meet) listening, I preferred the Lambda Signature to the 007II out of an ES1. I figured it was just my ears, the room, my lunch, whatever. I've no desire to get in the middle of what appears to be an ongoing Mikhail/Gilmore crossfire, but my very limited experience seemed to undersell the SRM-007II, leaving me wondering for months why it is held up as such a paragon of design when 20-year-old phones best it. Other opinions, some similar to my own, can readily be had in the Denver mini-meet impressions thread (hosted by none other than Mikhail).

You wanted to say SR-007? Not SRM-007II, right?

 

[majkel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faust2D /img/forum/go_quote.gif You wanted to say SR-007? Not SRM-007II, right?

He wanted to say SR-007 MkII. I'd say the same but paired with the SRM-727A. I've never tried ES-1.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faust2D /img/forum/go_quote.gif You wanted to say SR-007? Not SRM-007II, right?

You've got it right.

That's what you get reading about Stax all day. Cross your "S"s and dot your "t"s

 

[kevin gilmore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif After reading his posts in another forum, I honestly believe that he has no real understanding of just what the ES1 is or how it works (beyond some obvious basics). It's not a Stax design, despite some topological similarity.

real stax srx schematic
Electrostatic Headphones Amps

schematic for an ES1 i did this morning from extremely high resolution
pictures that can be supplied on request.
http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/es1.gif

Sure look the same to me. Only differences is the balanced input
which should be obvious to even the most casual observer, and 2
places where smaller resistors are used in series or parallel to get
to the correct power rating. And a bigger output tube.

topological similarity 100%.

Its foolish to think i don't understand this circuit.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to argue with you but none of the SP amps are designed by Mikhail so why should the ES-1 be any different?

So who did design them?

 

[kevin gilmore]

The stax SRX as well as many other stax products were designed
by Dr. Takeshi Hayashi. Brilliant, innovative and unique designs. Every
one of them. Including the stax electrostatic phono cartridge, and the
stax pure class A amplifier which weighed over 300 lbs per channel.

The White cathode follower was developed by Mr. White.
All of mikhail's tube based dynamic amps except for the extreme.

The design of the extreme dates back to the mid 1950's. Who was
first would be very hard to tell at this point.

The singlepower squarewave and squarewaveXL are Bryston designs.
(among others)

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin gilmore /img/forum/go_quote.gif topological similarity 100%. Its foolish to think i don't understand this circuit.

My amp had undergone two modifications to the audio circuit since I've owned it. I'm not talking about parts replacements, but actual circuit mods. So, of the three variants that my amp has had, it's only possible that one of them, if any, has had 100% topological similarity to the Stax amp in question. Not worth my time to check against the schematic. You've been posting way too much fiction lately.

It's no secret that Mikhail used the older Stax designs as the basis for the ES1. The original commission was for a Blue Hawaii, but it improved impossible for Mikhail to get the sound he wanted from that design, so he went to the Stax designs, and built from there. I've seen the BH sitting on the shelf when I visited his plant a while back.

Having done comparisons of the BH and ES1 on multiple occasions, I can hear why Mikhail abandoned the design. I can also state that Justin's latest SE is the only BH I've heard that even comes close to the ES1. Other people who have done the comparison may have other opinions, of course.

This raises an interesting irony. If you're correct (and to the best of my knowledge you are not), and Mikhail is using 100% of the topology of an older Stax design, then your best public effort at an electrostatic amp design actually sounds worse than an older Stax design. This throws some doubt on your own designs. If an older, simpler design sounds better, why did you even bother to release the BH? If you're correct about the ES1, and the sonics of it and the BH are taken into consideration, the Blue Hawaii becomes an example of how technological excess is not a substitute for solid design concepts, rather than a serious advancement in amp design.

If you're wrong, then Mikhail may have built a better-sounding amp than the BH, but at least the BH was a worthwhile improvement in amplification design in its day. However, by posting incorrect information, you will have done some serious damage to your own credibility. If you're posting incorrect information about Mikhail's amps, does this mean that your attacks on Ray Samuels' products were partially or wholly based in fiction also?

Can anything that you say be believed anymore, without independent verification?

Interesting hole that you've dug for yourself.

 

[gp_hebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've been posting way too much fiction lately.

Would you mind citing some examples? Seems like an unfounded personal attack to my eyes.

 

[shplorgh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif This raises an interesting irony. If you're correct (and to the best of my knowledge you are not), and Mikhail is using 100% of the topology of an older Stax design, then your best public effort at an electrostatic amp design actually sounds worse than an older Stax design. This throws some doubt on your own designs. If an older, simpler design sounds better, why did you even bother to release the BH? If you're correct about the ES1, and the sonics of it and the BH are taken into consideration, the Blue Hawaii becomes an example of how technological excess is not a substitute for solid design concepts, rather than a serious advancement in amp design. If you're wrong, then Mikhail may have built a better-sounding amp than the BH, but at least the BH was a worthwhile improvement in amplification design in its day. However, by posting incorrect information, you will have done some serious damage to your own credibility. If you're posting incorrect information about Mikhail's amps, does this mean that your attacks on Ray Samuels' products were partially or wholly based in fiction also?

Isn't the matter of what is a better sounding design far too subjective to be used as evidence against a designer's credibility?

 

[Gradofan2]

God only knows... I love conflict... and... have engaged in a fair amount of it myself... until the Moderator stepped in and deleted my posts - which I considered inappropriate, because mine were not opinion, but "just the facts ma'am"... and... they were directly on the point of the thread... but... "cest la vie."

However, I do see the benefit of isolating this discussion in a separate thread specifically related to this topic... and... allowing the question of the OP continue to be the focus of this thread.

Please....

I, as well as others, really do want to know what the real "scoop" is on the Stax setups, regarding their sonic limitations compared to good dynamic setups.

 

[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradofan2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I, as well as others, really do want to know what the real "scoop" is on the Stax setups, regarding their sonic limitations compared to good dynamic setups.

Good Stax setups, or the headphones messaged in the thread title? Because I heard Omega 2 deliver things that no dynamic driver can dream of delivering, while maintaining all the impact dynamic drivers are loved for. On the other hand I've never heard a dynamic headphone with massive amplification/source behind it deliver the same speed and resolution Omega 2 had to offer. (And yes, I heard some monstrous dynamic rigs).

But since the thread is concentrated on SR-303/404 and their weaknesses - that has been documented a while ago, and the problem is mainly one specific frequency imbalance (if you fix that, other things start coming into place, 4070 shows what happens very well).

 

[luvdunhill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, of the three variants that my amp has had, it's only possible that one of them, if any, has had 100% topological similarity to the Stax amp in question.

The term topology means something different to a engineer than it does to the hoi polloi. A WCF is a WCF, no matter how much you tart it up. A tube that uses X, Y and Z tubes can only be assembled so many ways (assuming we credit the designer with some modicum of sense) and the set containing these permutations comprises the topology.

Again, substituting a current source for a resistor is indeed a significant modification, but does not change the topology of the amplifier. As a result, the BHSE is of the same topology as the original BH. In fact, 100% the same topology despite the changes.

If you wish to prove otherwise with your specific amplifier, show us the goods.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradofan2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif God only knows... I love conflict... and... have engaged in a fair amount of it myself... until the Moderator stepped in and deleted my posts - which I considered inappropriate, because mine were not opinion, but "just the facts ma'am"... and... they were directly on the point of the thread... but... "cest la vie." However, I do see the benefit of isolating this discussion in a separate thread specifically related to this topic... and... allowing the question of the OP continue to be the focus of this thread. Please.... I, as well as others, really do want to know what the real "scoop" is on the Stax setups, regarding their sonic limitations compared to good dynamic setups.

I agree a separate thread is needed in the high-end section starting where this thread veered off into amp designs.

 

[Gradofan2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaloS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good Stax setups, or the headphones messaged in the thread title? Because I heard Omega 2 deliver things that no dynamic driver can dream of delivering, while maintaining all the impact dynamic drivers are loved for. On the other hand I've never heard a dynamic headphone with massive amplification/source behind it deliver the same speed and resolution Omega 2 had to offer. (And yes, I heard some monstrous dynamic rigs). But since the thread is concentrated on SR-303/404 and their weaknesses - that has been documented a while ago, and the problem is mainly one specific frequency imbalance (if you fix that, other things start coming into place, 4070 shows what happens very well).

How do you fix that?

What is the Omega 2 - is that the 007 MKII?