[jjcha]

I have to say that I have owned number of the "best" headphones. And I think I have owned enough to have an opinion on what I consider the "best". And the SR-X mk3 belongs with the best.

I'm talking along with the Orpheus, the R10, the Qualia 010, the K 1000, the HP1000, the L3000 and others as truly one of the best. Dun get me wrong, we all have our preferences and we may prefer one over the other. But in terms of being an absolutely great headphone, the SR-X is one of them. But the thing about the SR-X mk3 is that it can be had for a hundred bucks or so! And all the while delivering an absolutely superlative and unmatched sound! You can't say that about the rest!

If that doesn't deserve an appreciation thread, I don't know what does.

So if you have $200 bux and want the best sound available, a SR-X mk3 and Stax transformer is the way to go. Put those Grado SR-225, Sennheiser HD600, Beyers, AKG K 701 and Sonys and all that other stuff away. Trust me. The SR-X mk3 sits among truly the best headphones out there. For $200 bux you can have something that is as good, and in some ways better, than the best of the best.

Who's with me??

Best,

-Jason

 

[facelvega]

You're going to drive up the price of the SR-X with that kind of talk. There are so few pairs in circulation that drawing direct attention to them like this can have almost instant repercussions on the used market, potentially helping to exclude the penniless studious hobbyist from Stax ownership. To paraphrase a quote out of place, the first rule about vintage stax club is you don't talk about vintage stax club.

That said, the SR-X are indeed grand, I love mine and generally agree with your assessment of their abilities. But sshhh!

 

[edstrelow]

I'm not.

I regret listening to the SRX3 fanboys previously because their ravings prompted me to get a set and I found that the SRX3 are just not that good.

On the plus side they have very good definition in the mid frequencies, and that alone might make you want to hear them or add them to your collection. But they are not a good general purpose phone.

Especially when I compare my SRX3 with its replacement, the low bias Sigma, you are really struck by the lack of bass and ambience.

Also the superaural construction is not very comfortable because of the pressure on the outer ear.

I am always surprised at the phones some people chose to hype. I try to determine whether or not a non-hi-fi buff would find them good . I would not recommend the SRX3 to a new user as a good example of electrostatic sound to start out with. The SRX3 is thin and harsh sounding, has poor bass and just don't sound that good on most material.

I noted in previous postings that several people who liked these phones admitted to using tone controls to make them sound better. I don't object to tone controls in principal but I would rather get a set of phones that sound good without their need and there are plenty if stats that meet that criterion.

$200 for for a 30-year old set of these?

These are also unrepairable. Stax doesn't have any replacement transducers, unlike the Sigmas and Lambdas where you can still get parts.

For $240 get a new Stax SR001 Mk2. You will get a portable amp as well as phones and I predict you will like them better on wider range of music than the SRX3.

If you are a collector, add it to your collection for its mid frequency definition but it is not a usable general purpose phone without some serious equalizing.

 

[krmathis]

I totally agree!
The SR-X/MK3 are really great. Especially for their price tag (I paid $140 for my last pair, with an SRD-7/MK2). To my ears they beat all the dynamic headphones I have heard, including the HD650, K701, GS1000, RS1, DT990, ...

Give them a try if you have the possibility!

 

[spritzer]

They are indeed great but I would categorize them with the Lambda Pro, very good headphones but Stax made even better models back then. The SR-Lambda and SR-Sigma were designed to expand on the SR-X sound while providing better extension and soundstage. Both are IMHO much better headphones but the SR-Sigma needs a beast of an amp to drive them.

They are a bit sibilant, bass light, the midrange is closed in with a slight nasality to it and there is virtually no soundstage. Replacing the cable will remove most of the sibilance but not all and new earpads help with the bass but the basic character stays the same. They are still much better then the very rare and sought after SR-X Mk2.

They are unrepairable when they break and Stax can't help you, at all. the glue holding the stators in place dries out with time and then you get the dreaded channel mismatch. Getting it right again is almost impossible

 

[mirumu]

I think the SR-X mk3 has it's share of problems as other's have described but it's also very strong in areas uncommon for it's price such as midrange definition and reproduction of timbre where much more exotic and expensive headphones can seem to struggle at times. Listening to piano or acoustic guitar on the SR-X Mk3 can provide much unexpected and unassuming bliss. Yes, the bass is light, and yes they can sound harsh but applying some EQ to a headphone of this standing brings less guilt than to do the same with something with the careful component matching and cost of the HE90s or R10s. The benefits are there for the taking to those who dare. Yes, I'm proud to support an SR-X mk3 appreciation thread.

 

[billinkansas]

I'd have to say that I appreciate more than love the SRX-MKIII. While I do like the detail in them, I find them more useful for evaluating recordings rather than enjoying them. That being said, they can be quite wonderful with the right recordings, and I will probably still keep them for a while.

I had a meet at my house the other day, five of us total. Everyone tried the SRX-MKIII and said it was good but "too hot" to listen to for very long. This is out of several sources that we had on hand - a Stax SRM-007t, a SRD-7 driven by a vintage Fisher tube amp, and a McAlister Electrostatic amp.

If they can be had in good condition for $100, go for it!

 

[complin]

I bought a pair of these headphones new when they were released.
I know i'm showing may age now!
Whilst I agree they are good I dont think they are comparable with later versions from the Stax stable such as the Lambda's. In comparison with models such as these the SRX lacks bass impact and particularly width and depth of the soundstage.
Personally if I were looking for a cheap set of stax on the secondhand market i would go for the basic set of 202's with energiser which providing an amazing sound for very little money.

 

[feckn_eejit]

*Flawless* in the middle, if only they had extension at the extremes...

 

[krmathis]

They are far from a "perfect" pair of headphones.
But as many others I am impressed by their midrange. Certainly on par with the top performers, which is outstanding for a headphone with its price tag.

Their bass extension improves with new earpads, but certainly leave something to be desired. They will never match the later top models on that part...
I like them though!

 

[facelvega]

big bass is a fad, not an absolute measure of headphone response. Up until about the mid-80s, very strong bass response was considered a flaw in headphone design, and the change wasn't fully in place until a dozen years later. Think of the difference between a K501 and a K701, or an HD580 versus an HD650. Chances are the pendulum will swing back to a preference for a flatter bass response that doesn't smooth over mid and high-end crispness, at which time Stax will probably offer a headphone sounding like the SR-X again. The soundstage issue, on the other hand, is more fundamental, and shows the real gains established with the invention of the Lambda frame.

 

[spritzer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega /img/forum/go_quote.gif big bass is a fad, not an absolute measure of headphone response. Up until about the mid-80s, very strong bass response was considered a flaw in headphone design, and the change wasn't fully in place until a dozen years later. Think of the difference between a K501 and a K701, or an HD580 versus an HD650. Chances are the pendulum will swing back to a preference for a flatter bass response that doesn't smooth over mid and high-end crispness, at which time Stax will probably offer a headphone sounding like the SR-X again. The soundstage issue, on the other hand, is more fundamental, and shows the real gains established with the invention of the Lambda frame.

Real bass isn't a fad and headphones (and speakers) were bass light because the main medium at the time doesn't have much low bass. When CD arrived this changed and many speaker manufacturers learned harsh lessons on just how bad their speakers were. None of the electrostatic manufacturers had the know how to get really good bass form their transducers and it isn't fully realized until in the 90's. Many speakers prior to that had good bass but the designers used some crazy tricks to pull it off. Double and triple membranes and other crazy stuff when they only needed a really sturdy frame...

The Omegas do actually sound like they have less bass then the SR-X but it only comes into full force when it is called for. The Lambdas are pretty bassy headphones IMO but that started with the Lambda Pro. It's true that many designers did go for extreme bass as that sells to people that don't know any better but certainly not Stax. As the Lambda drivers got better the housing started to really show its issues and couldn't control the drivers.

 

[facelvega]

Well, speakers are a whole different question, with a very different history, but your theory on the limitations of vinyl is interesting. I'd think that something else from around that time was more influential to the change, namely a wave of bass-heavy popular music that doesn't sound right on flat headphones, but then I haven't listened to any of my old vinyl in years. Certainly dynamic headphones could easily produce strong bass long before they did so at the top end of anyone's range, and actually did so for about a decade after the popularization of cds. For instance, think of the Beyer DT831/931, a new bass-light top model introduced as late as 1997, and briefly quite popular among enthusiasts. And why were they popular? Because by keeping the bass relatively recessed, they were capable of a more precise articulation of the mids and highs-- always a problem when a single driver is asked to cover the entire spectrum.

Now, I'd fully agree that planar drivers tend to be able to overcome this problem in that they can present a very forward bass without impacting the rest of the range, but I've yet to hear a conventional dynamic driver do this in a way I find convincing. It's not that I don't like the fullness they can offer, it's that I'm not willing to pay the price. In other words, I'd take something like an HD600 over a 650 any day. But I'll take an SR-X before either of them. And of course, that said I should admit that most of my music doesn't tread far down the electro-bass road, and if it did maybe I'd be singing a different tune.

Finally, though, I guess it's too soon to say whether the new bass is a fad or a sea-change. Only time will tell.

 

[spritzer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, speakers are a whole different question, with a very different history, but your theory on the limitations of vinyl is interesting. I'd think that something else from around that time was more influential to the change, namely a wave of bass-heavy popular music that doesn't sound right on flat headphones, but then I haven't listened to any of my old vinyl in years. Certainly dynamic headphones could easily produce strong bass long before they did so at the top end of anyone's range, and actually did so for about a decade after the popularization of cds. For instance, think of the Beyer DT831/931, a new bass-light top model introduced as late as 1997, and briefly quite popular among enthusiasts. And why were they popular? Because by keeping the bass relatively recessed, they were capable of a more precise articulation of the mids and highs-- always a problem when a single driver is asked to cover the entire spectrum.

First off I believe we are talking about two different things, real deep bass that is only that when it is supposed to be and the bass of todays pop-music, overblown and nasty. Bass should be proportionate to the rest of the music and that's what I want my transducers to do.

Vinyl can't do the really deep bass CD can do and it starts to roll off before because the grooves would be way to big to track if it could handle the bass. This is the reason (or one of them) for the RIAA EQ. Vinyl can do bass but even the cutting edge in 1982 was a bit woolly and speaker manufacturers really had to clean up their act. This is mostly true with the really large woofers and other stupid stuff since all the electrostatics predating CD sound great. Since bass wasn't vinyl best side, designers often let the glorious midrange shine since thats where the wast majority of the music is. The SR-X Mk3 is that view in the flesh and in it self a huge upgrade over the short lived Mk2. The Stax engineers did although understand that they had a really good headphone on their hands and set out to design a better version that built on the SR-X principle.

Dynamics are as we all know nasty things and should be avoided at all cost...

and they have nasty artifacts in the bass region. The only way to make them listenable is to limit the bass so it will not drown out the rest of the spectrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now, I'd fully agree that planar drivers tend to be able to overcome this problem in that they can present a very forward bass without impacting the rest of the range, but I've yet to hear a conventional dynamic driver do this in a way I find convincing. It's not that I don't like the fullness they can offer, it's that I'm not willing to pay the price. In other words, I'd take something like an HD600 over a 650 any day. But I'll take an SR-X before either of them. And of course, that said I should admit that most of my music doesn't tread far down the electro-bass road, and if it did maybe I'd be singing a different tune. Finally, though, I guess it's too soon to say whether the new bass is a fad or a sea-change. Only time will tell.

No electro bass either but no dynamic headphone can match the SR-007 when it comes to bass quality, depth, presence and texture. It does lack the "slam" colorations but that only makes it better. Dynamic speakers are much worse because of the crossover and all the nasty stuff that is introduced there. It does make me a bit sick that when people hear an accurate transducer, it has no bass. This was the Stax myth here until 2004-2005...

This bass nonsense is going to continue, at least with the crap the major music labels are pimping. Still there is a lot of good music out there that is recorded with instruments and it isn't overblown in the bass. There is still hope...

 

[luvdunhill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl can't do the really deep bass CD can do and it starts to roll off before because the grooves would be way to big to track if it could handle the bass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is the reason (or one of them) for the RIAA EQ. Vinyl can do bass but even the cutting edge in 1982 was a bit woolly and speaker manufacturers really had to clean up their act.

a lot of people say this to me, then I pull out the mono records (and a phono stage with adjustable RIAA curves) and a mono cartridge .... yup, there's bass there.