[mtoc]

"technically better, but sounds worse than 25 yo products", these phrases repeat again and again, which means: "sounds really bad but I don't wanna admit it"

 

[Chefguru]

"technically better, but sounds worse than 25 yo products", these phrases repeat again and again, which means: "sounds really bad but I don't wanna admit it"

I know you're trolling around, but I've made a lot of posts about this because all of my favorite headphones are 30 years old. Innovation in this industry is more focused on wireless, size of unit, noise canceling, and software improvements. Actual driver improvement is a niche market.

Just look at the timeline of all the best flagship headphones ever made:

Stax sr-Lambda (1970s)
Stax Lambda Nova Signature (1980s)
Grado hp-1000, 1988/1989
Sony mdr-r10, 1988~1990
Orpheus 1990~
Omega 1990~
007 1998
Sony q010 - 2006

You'll see by early 90s, there is a big break because planar has a resurgence but is not yet ready to compete - during this time other companies are trying to figure out ways to be more profitable like grado making worse headphones that sell better or Sennheiser looking for tricks to mimic an estat with dynamic drivers. Over 20+ years we only got a handful of top models that stood against those before.
Move into the last five years and new TOTL headphones are looking for different approaches to design, such as the fit of the TC 1266 or the ribbon Raal Sr-ra1.

The x9000 is exciting because Stax is trying to go back to the omega design and figure out how they can do it better with newer technology they invented on the 009 line. The omega has serious design instabilities, which is why so many have failed drivers. The x9000 does excel in some areas, such as an even bigger soundstage, even better separation & resolution, and more controlled bass. The trade is less "bite" and to me, the sr-omega has a kind of graininess that I like in instrument presentation. This is a non-issue in pop, electronic, hip-hop or other genres that sample instead of use acoustic instruments.

Given that you have personally DM'ed about the x9000, I am aware that you have not heard the x9000. For those that are trying to use this forum as a place to make educated opinions about products... perhaps restrain yourself from amplifying the signal on the white noise...

 

[Mentanalyste]

I know you're trolling around, but I've made a lot of posts about this because all of my favorite headphones are 30 years old. Innovation in this industry is more focused on wireless, size of unit, noise canceling, and software improvements. Actual driver improvement is a niche market.

Just look at the timeline of all the best flagship headphones ever made:

Stax sr-Lambda (1970s)
Stax Lambda Nova Signature (1980s)
Grado hp-1000, 1988/1989
Sony mdr-r10, 1988~1990
Orpheus 1990~
Omega 1990~
007 1998
Sony q010 - 2006

You'll see by early 90s, there is a big break because planar has a resurgence but is not yet ready to compete - during this time other companies are trying to figure out ways to be more profitable like grado making worse headphones that sell better or Sennheiser looking for tricks to mimic an estat with dynamic drivers. Over 20+ years we only got a handful of top models that stood against those before.
Move into the last five years and new TOTL headphones are looking for different approaches to design, such as the fit of the TC 1266 or the ribbon Raal Sr-ra1.

The x9000 is exciting because Stax is trying to go back to the omega design and figure out how they can do it better with newer technology they invented on the 009 line. The omega has serious design instabilities, which is why so many have failed drivers. The x9000 does excel in some areas, such as an even bigger soundstage, even better separation & resolution, and more controlled bass. The trade is less "bite" and to me, the sr-omega has a kind of graininess that I like in instrument presentation. This is a non-issue in pop, electronic, hip-hop or other genres that sample instead of use acoustic instruments.

Given that you have personally DM'ed about the x9000, I am aware that you have not heard the x9000. For those that are trying to use this forum as a place to make educated opinions about products... perhaps restrain yourself from amplifying the signal on the white noise...

It's great to read this kind of quality and wisdom message. It makes the community grow.

Thank you.

 

[catscratch]

I love the sound of my 007mk2. I have read the threads but I am not sure what the issue is with it that people complain about. If the mk1 sounds so much better wouldn’t EQ address the problem people have with the Mk2?

Sort of. The mk2 has some resonances in the midrange that make its midrange tembre a bit more nasal than the mk1, and they've proven stubbornly difficult to EQ out. I'm sure a good EQ profile is in there somewhere, but for the present I've shelved the Mk2 at least until I get my amp situation sorted out.

I agree with the previous assessment that the mk2 is livelier sounding and more dynamic while the mk1 is a bit more natural. I also think the mk1 is a bit more resolving while simultaneously being more fluid, but it can sound sleepy and dull and definitely needs a nuclear reactor of an amp to get it singing. The mk2 also needs a powerful amp but it's livelier sounding to begin with. It's also brighter past 10khz and is more V-shaped in its overall tuning, while the mk1 is definitely dark.

TL;DR if you like the mk2, stick with the mk2. On the other hand, you will lose nothing getting a used mk1 to try out, they're only going up in value. Just make sure it's a good one.

Also, I think the midrange resonances may be a driver/ear distance thing, and could easily be fit dependent - i.e. I might hear them quite clearly but you might not. The mk2 has a thicker pad than the mk1 and the driver sits a bit further away from the ear - but it could also be stiffer springs, as the 007 uses springs to keep the pad in shape.

 

[Schelp san]

Sort of. The mk2 has some resonances in the midrange that make its midrange tembre a bit more nasal than the mk1, and they've proven stubbornly difficult to EQ out. I'm sure a good EQ profile is in there somewhere, but for the present I've shelved the Mk2 at least until I get my amp situation sorted out.

I agree with the previous assessment that the mk2 is livelier sounding and more dynamic while the mk1 is a bit more natural. I also think the mk1 is a bit more resolving while simultaneously being more fluid, but it can sound sleepy and dull and definitely needs a nuclear reactor of an amp to get it singing. The mk2 also needs a powerful amp but it's livelier sounding to begin with. It's also brighter past 10khz and is more V-shaped in its overall tuning, while the mk1 is definitely dark.

TL;DR if you like the mk2, stick with the mk2. On the other hand, you will lose nothing getting a used mk1 to try out, they're only going up in value. Just make sure it's a good one.

Also, I think the midrange resonances may be a driver/ear distance thing, and could easily be fit dependent - i.e. I might hear them quite clearly but you might not. The mk2 has a thicker pad than the mk1 and the driver sits a bit further away from the ear - but it could also be stiffer springs, as the 007 uses springs to keep the pad in shape.

I can confirm the treble peak of MK2 in unmodified condition. It seemed to concentrate too much treble energy to a very small range, which sounded not natural to me. Somewhere in the forum I found a description for the "spring mod", which should cure this. And indeed, after 2 or 3 tries of slightly bending the pad spring I found a setting where the peak was eliminated. I had the feeling, that the treble energy was spread to a much wider frequency band. I did not notice changes in the midrange. This mod was more important to me than the port mod.

 

[Schelp san]

"technically better, but sounds worse than 25 yo products", these phrases repeat again and again, which means: "sounds really bad but I don't wanna admit it"

It is not that easy. As said it is highly depending on the music, record, the mood, setup etc. I rate the 9000 high, but for me it is not the allrounder I hoped it would be. I hoped for a better 009, to concentrate on 007 and 9000. But while sharing a lot with 009, 9000 is now another complementary headphone which does not make the 009 obsolete.
Again, as multiple times written, it comes down to personal preferences. The increased soundstage of 9000 (and all the consequences) seems to be a big general improvement for many, but not for all. When a friend (he has 009 setup) visited me not long ago, he clearly stated he likes 9000 a lot and he would rate it above 009. My 007 was not interesting at all for him...

 

[number1sixerfan]

Given that you have personally DM'ed about the x9000, I am aware that you have not heard the x9000. For those that are trying to use this forum as a place to make educated opinions about products... perhaps restrain yourself from amplifying the signal on the white noise...

Well said. The inflammatory trolling from people that haven't actually heard the x9000 is really taking away from otherwise valuable conversation.

---------------

One thing I wanted to mention related to some of the recent posts is that the Stax TOTL models are very polarizing. Each one is very unique. You will never get all stax users in a room and get them to agree on the 009 vs. 007, for example. Hell, you can't even get people to agree on the MK1 vs. the MK2 (with and without mods). Some brands have more of a house sound that's very consistent in their TOTL models. As of late, that just isn't true for Stax, so opinions will vary as preferences do quite a bit more than with other headphone brands.

The fact that Stax is essentially using the Omega as it's inspiration for the x9000, which was extremely unique as well, complicates this even further. I personally wanted a 009 successor, and I know others that wanted a 007 successor. Instead you got a blend of some qualities of each, while sounding like neither and far closer to the Omega imo. Because of all of these reasons, I tried to explain this from day one in this thread lol--that the presentation would be the biggest kicker for people and it will come down to preference.

That said, for me, the x9000 easily outclasses the 009 and 007 both. And I don't just mean technically. Even though I prefer the presentation of the 009 (forwardness, more detailed highs etc), I haven't used it AT ALL since having the x9000--it's simply too much better; and that's coming from a 009 zealot. Although the 007 MK1 improved leaps and bounds with the T2, it also mainly just sits for the same reason. If I had to chose just one, it would be a VERY easy decision. The same applies for me for the TC, Susvara, Sr1a, etc. For others, again that will differ due to everything mentioned above.

Out of everything I've heard/owned over the past few years, the only headphones for me that I would take over the x9000 are the SGL Sr., HE90 and R10. (would be a really tough decision with the L3000). And the most important thing to note for these are, 1) we're talking headphones double and triple the price; and 2) TOTL headphones were just voiced differently long ago, many of them just have much better natural tones (especially with vocals) that can make them very enjoyable--compared to the tradeoff of the new TOTLs being more technically proficient, but lacking this soul/tonal magic (this applies to just about all of them.. the TC, Susvara, etc. etc.).

 

[mercman]

Well said. The inflammatory trolling from people that haven't actually heard the x9000 is really taking away from otherwise valuable conversation.

---------------

One thing I wanted to mention related to some of the recent posts is that the Stax TOTL models are very polarizing. Each one is very unique. You will never get all stax users in a room and get them to agree on the 009 vs. 007, for example. Hell, you can't even get people to agree on the MK1 vs. the MK2 (with and without mods). Some brands have more of a house sound that's very consistent in their TOTL models. As of late, that just isn't true for Stax, so opinions will vary as preferences do quite a bit more than with other headphone brands.

The fact that Stax is essentially using the Omega as it's inspiration for the x9000, which was extremely unique as well, complicates this even further. I personally wanted a 009 successor, and I know others that wanted a 007 successor. Instead you got a blend of some qualities of each, while sounding like neither and far closer to the Omega imo. Because of all of these reasons, I tried to explain this from day one in this thread lol--that the presentation would be the biggest kicker for people and it will come down to preference.

That said, for me, the x9000 easily outclasses the 009 and 007 both. And I don't just mean technically. Even though I prefer the presentation of the 009 (forwardness, more detailed highs etc), I haven't used it AT ALL since having the x9000--it's simply too much better; and that's coming from a 009 zealot. Although the 007 MK1 improved leaps and bounds with the T2, it also mainly just sits for the same reason. If I had to chose just one, it would a VERY easy decision. The same applies for me for the TC, Susvara, Sr1a, etc. For others, again that will differ due to everything mentioned above.

Out of everything I've heard/owned over the past few years, the only headphones for me that I would take over the x9000 are the SGL Sr., HE90 and R10. (would be a really tough decision with the L3000). And the most important thing to note for these are, 1) we're talking headphones double and triple the price; and 2) TOTL headphones were just voiced differently long ago, many of them just have much better natural tones (especially with vocals) that can make them very enjoyable--compared to the tradeoff of the new TOTLs being more technically proficient, but lacking this soul/tonal magic (this applies to just about all of them.. the TC, Susvara, etc. etc.).

After living with the X9000 for 6 months now, my experiences mirror yours when comparing the X9000 to my 007 MK1 and 009S.

I just find the X9000 to be far more engaging given it’s awesome transparency and resolution.

 

[Chefguru]

For those of you with x9000...
I decided to try the shorter cable today. I need the longer one for my current arrangement, but I was curious if I could hear a sonic difference. I remembered in the past there was a downgrade in sound quality when people used the stax extension cables

Well, for what it's worth I do believe I'm hearing a sonic improvement using a short cable. I wonder how much this is accounting for different opinions.

 

[Schelp san]

Well said. The inflammatory trolling from people that haven't actually heard the x9000 is really taking away from otherwise valuable conversation.

---------------

One thing I wanted to mention related to some of the recent posts is that the Stax TOTL models are very polarizing. Each one is very unique. You will never get all stax users in a room and get them to agree on the 009 vs. 007, for example. Hell, you can't even get people to agree on the MK1 vs. the MK2 (with and without mods). Some brands have more of a house sound that's very consistent in their TOTL models. As of late, that just isn't true for Stax, so opinions will vary as preferences do quite a bit more than with other headphone brands.

The fact that Stax is essentially using the Omega as it's inspiration for the x9000, which was extremely unique as well, complicates this even further. I personally wanted a 009 successor, and I know others that wanted a 007 successor. Instead you got a blend of some qualities of each, while sounding like neither and far closer to the Omega imo. Because of all of these reasons, I tried to explain this from day one in this thread lol--that the presentation would be the biggest kicker for people and it will come down to preference.

That said, for me, the x9000 easily outclasses the 009 and 007 both. And I don't just mean technically. Even though I prefer the presentation of the 009 (forwardness, more detailed highs etc), I haven't used it AT ALL since having the x9000--it's simply too much better; and that's coming from a 009 zealot. Although the 007 MK1 improved leaps and bounds with the T2, it also mainly just sits for the same reason. If I had to chose just one, it would be a VERY easy decision. The same applies for me for the TC, Susvara, Sr1a, etc. For others, again that will differ due to everything mentioned above.

Out of everything I've heard/owned over the past few years, the only headphones for me that I would take over the x9000 are the SGL Sr., HE90 and R10. (would be a really tough decision with the L3000). And the most important thing to note for these are, 1) we're talking headphones double and triple the price; and 2) TOTL headphones were just voiced differently long ago, many of them just have much better natural tones (especially with vocals) that can make them very enjoyable--compared to the tradeoff of the new TOTLs being more technically proficient, but lacking this soul/tonal magic (this applies to just about all of them.. the TC, Susvara, etc. etc.).

Can I ask what kind of music you prefer? Maybe more classical music or intrumental, and less rock, funk, jazz? Or is your statement that 9000 outclasses 007/009 completeley independent from the genre?

And another question, you mentioned that your T2 improved your 007 a lot, compared to BHSE. Would you say that 007 scales more than 009 and 9000 when changing from BHSE to T2?

 

[number1sixerfan]

Can I ask what kind of music you prefer? Maybe more classical music or intrumental, and less rock, funk, jazz? Or is your statement that 9000 outclasses 007/009 completely independent from the genre?

Acoustic, Classical, Jazz, Funk, Soul, Classic Rock, Vocal heavy music, etc. No Metal or Hip Hop and most bass heavy music I listen to through speakers, which I do think is worth mentioning. (007 is a bit better with Hip Hop for example). But that said, for me, it's pretty genre agnostic. But also admit I prefer the presentation of both the 007 and 009 more, just not enough to make up for how much better it is overall.

And another question, you mentioned that your T2 improved your 007 a lot, compared to BHSE. Would you say that 007 scales more than 009 and 9000 when changing from BHSE to T2?

Yes, that is absolutely correct. The 007 is harder to power correctly than either the 009 or the x9000, and really by far. Only the SGL Sr. compares in that regard. After hearing it out of the T2 I realized I didn't give it enough due credit prior.

 

[Schelp san]

Acoustic, Classical, Jazz, Funk, Soul, Classic Rock, Vocal heavy music, etc. No Metal or Hip Hop and most bass heavy music I listen to through speakers, which I do think is worth mentioning. (007 is a bit better with Hip Hop for example). But that said, for me, it's pretty genre agnostic. But also admit I prefer the presentation of both the 007 and 009 more, just not enough to make up for how much better it is overall.



Yes, that is absolutely correct. The 007 is harder to power correctly than either the 009 or the x9000, and really by far. Only the SGL Sr. compares in that regard. After hearing it out of the T2 I realized I didn't give it enough due credit prior.

Now I feel that we might not be so far away from each others sensing than I thought, respective I can better comprehend your previous statements. It seems we just weight things different. We both prefer the type of presentation of 007/009. But for me to prefer the 9000 over 007/009, the record and music needs to really fit, so that the superior technicality and other aspects of 9000 can compensate the less preferred "stage". If that makes any sense...? Anyway, thanks for clarification.

Good to know the extra 007 scaling effect of T2 over BHSE.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Now I feel that we might not be so far away from each others sensing than I thought, respective I can better comprehend your previous statements. It seems we just weight things different. We both prefer the type of presentation of 007/009. But for me to prefer the 9000 over 007/009, the record and music needs to really fit, so that the superior technicality and other aspects of 9000 can compensate the less preferred "stage". If that makes any sense...? Anyway, thanks for clarification.

Good to know the extra 007 scaling effect of T2 over BHSE.

Makes total sense. We're definitely on the same page on the presentations, and this is such a nuanced conversation and comparison that I totally get what you're saying and other people having preferences in any direction. Definitely get and respect what you're saying.

 

[Kiats]

Makes total sense. We're definitely on the same page on the presentations, and this is such a nuanced conversation and comparison that I totally get what you're saying and other people having preferences in any direction. Definitely get and respect what you're saying.

I have the 009 running off the KGST this morning. For the vocal music I generally listen to, this is a wonderful presentation. Of course when I switch to the Carbon, the presentation will be different. There are days when I prefer one or the other. But the the critical thing is that I enjoy the music.

 

[Aspirant Audiophile]

Now I feel that we might not be so far away from each others sensing than I thought, respective I can better comprehend your previous statements. It seems we just weight things different. We both prefer the type of presentation of 007/009. But for me to prefer the 9000 over 007/009, the record and music needs to really fit, so that the superior technicality and other aspects of 9000 can compensate the less preferred "stage". If that makes any sense...? Anyway, thanks for clarification.

Good to know the extra 007 scaling effect of T2 over BHSE.

Re scaling, I wonder how many people have had the opportunity to compare T2 with Megatron. I don't think I've read any posts anywhere that pit them head to head. I'm very happy with 007mki driven by Carbon and Megatron, but it could be years before I see a T2 in person.