[tigon_ridge]

He may have been referring to the peaks around 7-10 kHz.

Running frequency sweeps with all three Lambdas I had, this was the area where it got the peakiest, so to speak.

The overall frequency response is so linear that this isn't an issue for me. (And it's easy to fix with EQ.) If the peaks were at 3-6 kHz (which is common with other tech), it would be a different story.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Digital EQ is the most underappreciated, underutilized, and least understood aspect of all of hi-fi/audiophiledom/headphone community. People who are just wholly ignorant of how much good a nice digital parametric EQ can bring to the enjoyment of their expensive (and not so expensive) audio gear. AND IT'S FREEEEEEE! Instead, you see audiophools all over who shell out big bucks for cables that they admit have very little audible effects on their audio chain. These people don't even bother to post results of a proper ABX comparison of their cables (probably because they haven't done such testing, or have no clue what it even entails).

People don't understand that literally every pair of headphones requires some EQ to sound optimal. For one thing, they all come with a certain amount of channel imbalance at varying frequencies. Imbalance at sibilant frequencies is the most annoying thing of any headphones, in my opinion, and sometimes headphones come with them by default, and there's nothing you can do about it, except balance the channels using EQ.

People also assume that manufacturers meant for their products to have their exact frequency responses as what is measured. It's completely asinine! It's incredible difficult to have ultimate control over response curves, and manufacturers merely do their best to adhere to stay within certain parameters. If you look at the 009's response curve, it lacks that 9k-10k spike that other STAX headphones have. Hmm, couldn't be one of the major reasons why it's STAX's flagship, could it??

One may prefer headphone A to headphone B, but after some EQ, one may prefer the complete opposite.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Digital EQ is the most underappreciated, underutilized, and least understood aspect of all of hi-fi/audiophiledom/headphone community. People who are just wholly ignorant of how much good a nice digital parametric EQ can bring to the enjoyment of their expensive (and not so expensive) audio gear. AND IT'S FREEEEEEE! Instead, you see audiophools all over who shell out big bucks for cables that they admit have very little audible effects on their audio chain. These people don't even bother to post results of a proper ABX comparison of their cables (probably because they haven't done such testing, or have no clue what it even entails).

People don't understand that literally every pair of headphones requires some EQ to sound optimal. For one thing, they all come with a certain amount of channel imbalance at varying frequencies. Imbalance at sibilant frequencies is the most annoying thing of any headphones, in my opinion, and sometimes headphones come with them by default, and there's nothing you can do about it, except balance the channels using EQ.

People also assume that manufacturers meant for their products to have their exact frequency responses as what is measured. It's completely asinine! It's incredible difficult to have ultimate control over response curves, and manufacturers merely do their best to adhere to stay within certain parameters. If you look at the 009's response curve, it lacks that 9k-10k spike that other STAX headphones have. Hmm, couldn't be one of the major reasons why it's STAX's flagship, could it??

One may prefer headphone A to headphone B, but after some EQ, one may prefer the complete opposite.

Exactly. I've been a strong proponent of parametric equalizers for years. Headphones and speakers are not like electronics that can easily measure as a flat line. It really irks me when people refuse to use EQ because of total myths about it they've heard or just assumed. It does require considerable learning and effort, though, so I understand why so many are averse to it.

 

[SeaWo|f]

Still though going into eq haphazardly will lead to bad results. I think most will not take the time and struggle to get a good result. That is the under lying reason why it's frowned upon, the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[tigon_ridge]

No one ever gets good results without first going through lots of bad results. One can dig deep into the science and art of a relatively simple technology that can revolutionize one's auditory experience, but many, unfortunately, would rather dig deeper into their wallets for voodoo cables while pretending to be connoisseurs of audio. Headphones too bright? No problem! Plunk down a few hundred/thousand bucks for a different/tube amp...cause you know, EQ does a far better job of addressing the issue but it's nuclear engineering sh!t (it's actually pretty simple) and aint nobody got time for that.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Dunno if this was shared, but I didn't notice it until now. I like reading this site's reviews.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/stax-srs-3100-electrostatic-earspeaker-system/

 

[tigon_ridge]

Dunno if this was shared, but I didn't notice it until now. I like reading this site's reviews.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/stax-srs-3100-electrostatic-earspeaker-system/

Wow, I actually haven't seen that one. Thanks.

Also, just noticed your profile pic change to Historia. Good taste.

 

[alphanumerix1]

Limited version of L300 - SR-L300Limited: costs same as L500 , but has L700 driver (which shares technology from 009). Only 800 pieces will be made.

https://stax.theshop.jp/items/9564837

l700 driver? that makes no sense can you link me to somewhere that confirms this?

 

[SeaWo|f]

I had heard it was just the l700 stators.. Not the full driver.

 

[Music Alchemist]

l700 driver? that makes no sense can you link me to somewhere that confirms this?

I had heard it was just the l700 stators.. Not the full driver.

That sounds about right.

http://www.stax.co.jp/80th/80th_Anniversary-SRL300Limited.html

SR-L300 Limited is the high cost-performance limited model developed in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of STAX foundation . It features "MLER" ellipse sound element equivalent to Lambda series top models.

The “MLER” (Multi-Layer Elect Rode) is STAX exclusive electrode structure that has been completed through unification of metal plates using heat diffusion combination to attain minimum resonance characteristics.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Be sure to listen for the difference in subbass and not midbass, because bass humps normally occur in the 100hz region, not the subbass range. The L300's curve doesn't begin to descend until the 50hz point. I would test both headphones (if you happen to have both) with a sine sweep for a definitive comparison. You may be right, but I really just want to be extra sure. At this point, I don't know whether to go for a srs 3100 or 2170. They both seem very enticing.

I took your quote to this thread to stay on-topic.

What I meant was that I could hear the sub-bass just fine too with most music. (Though most music doesn't have much sub-bass to begin with.)

I did run frequency sweeps with all three of my Lambdas, but I don't remember the details of the bass (especially since it's more difficult to assess tonal balance of bass) and no longer own them.

Filling in the missing sub-bass is a simple matter with EQ, so it comes down to the technical performance and sound signatures of the headphones.

In case you didn't see my posts about it, my ranking would be SR-L300 > SR-207 > SR-Lambda. I always describe the SR-L300 as sounding more solid and focused, with older Lambdas becoming more ethereal in their presentation. (Not referring to tonal balance.) However, I think the SR-207 is a better representative of and introduction to the electrostatic sound. My first impression of the SR-L300 was that it was like a cross between a 'stat and dynamic headphone. It seems to have better resolution and less of the "delicate" nature of most 'stats.

 

[tigon_ridge]

In case you didn't see my posts about it, my ranking would be SR-L300 > SR-207 > SR-Lambda. I always describe the SR-L300 as sounding more solid and focused, with older Lambdas becoming more ethereal in their presentation. (Not referring to tonal balance.) However, I think the SR-207 is a better representative of and introduction to the electrostatic sound. My first impression of the SR-L300 was that it was like a cross between a 'stat and dynamic headphone. It seems to have better resolution and less of the "delicate" nature of most 'stats.

That mirrors what miceblue said almost exactly, except he prefers the ethereal nature of the 207. I really like his youtube review of the srs 2170. Thanks for your input.

 

[masolski]

Let me ask the question here although it is a tiny bit off topic. I've just started to DIY my L300 pada but also remember that Stax are dust sensitive. Can I make my pads out of velvet? Original are only leather which are free from small particles that can be attracted by staticaly charged diaphragm.

 

[SeaWo|f]

The drivers are fully sealed units.

 

[masolski]

The drivers are fully sealed units.

Aah. That's fantastic. Thank you!

 

[Music Alchemist]

Those who haven't seen this hilarious clip yet should. I think you'll see something...familiar.