[number1sixerfan]

I'm in the pro X9K camp too, though I haven't had the chance of listening to the Omega, but I am skeptical about it. I am suspicious that there are a lot of rose tinted views of old headphones. But maybe I'm just in the "new is better" camp

They are absolutely more similar than not. I can absolutely promise you that lol

Neither are my preferred presentation, but both of them are excellent in their own right, without question. If I had to boil it all down quickly (again for me), the x9000 is absolutely the more proficient of the two, while the Omega has a smoother and more natural tonality. The 007 and 009 couldn't be farther apart in comparison.

 

[Chefguru]

The sr-omega and sr-x9000 have a similar presentation except that the sr-omega has a much more "organic" sound quality about it. It is slightly worse with separation and the bass is less controlled - but it's also meatier. The tonality is what I would consider "neutral". Overall it has more dynamics than the x9k (difference in volume between lows & highs). The overall presentation of the two is similar due to driver size and design. I would describe the x9k as sounding more compressed if I had to do it in a single sentence.

The 70xxx and to some extent the 71xxx 007 sound kind of similar to the sr-omega's tonality but with better layering and smaller headspace with better control over bass.

The 009 then is a far departure from the 007. The 009 signature somehow does linger in the x9k to sort of bring the brand full circle... this is my take on the omega line.

 

[padam]

Even the Omega is a bit bright (to a tolerable degree), but the X9000 is brighter and to my ears it reacts differently to increasing volume.
I still don't like blasting an Omega or 007 with rock, but that's simply how they work best. If I wanted to improve something, it would be to lower this threshold further, there is probably quite a bit room in the system to make a "healthier", (even) more "musical" sound. But I also need to consider the actual value of that investment worthwhile, otherwise I just continue to measure peak loudness from time to time (quite a few people who visit me tend to push it higher still...). Still, in my experience at least, headphone-related differences are still more apparent and fairly constant irrespective of other changes (for the most part, 007 can be an exception).

Some people don't have problems with brightness, fine - while Bob Katz thinks that on a Carbon, anything above an (early, darker, port-modded) SR-007 Mk2 (which he still used an EQ on to boost bass before Carbon...) can be considered bright.
To be honest, if I compare against speakers like he does, I think he's right.
I was listening to a classical recording sample explained by an audio engineer I know on monitor speakers - never heard it live to compare unfortunately, but when I put it on at home, I was surprised how much brighter my "balanced" perception was set before.
Whether headphone-based listening needs to mimic that or emphasize other benefits - or trying to keep some sort of balance between the two is another matter.

But, regarding the X9K, fact of the matter is, like Chefguru said, there were/are quite a handful of them (still) in the classifieds section, ebay and other sites and as far as I know, there still aren't that many on the market. (People didn't give me credit back then, we can look at the state now).
I don't have much idea about individual reasons why these sales happened, but it would be interesting to know nevertheless - apart from a few, where I directly asked, getting similar reasons to my impressions with differing systems.
This wouldn't happen if it was as great as people think as an all-rounder for almost everything. As an "estat emphasizing estat things" with certain recordings, it's different. Not denying that it hit a new technical level, from what I already considered to be very high anyway, it's an experience. I still listen to Lambdas regularly (not just with old recordings), as I don't find that aspect that important to musical enjoyment above a level that they do hit.
Also, the first impressions tends to be: "Who the staging is so good". Well, yes, but my long-term experience is that the "grandiose, separated" sound all Stax flagships tend to do is simply "not better", can be too holographic/distant a lot of the times (and I felt the X9000 was particularly "sliced"), and you can feel that it's just not quite how the recording was meant to be played. And it is not achieved by just having a big ass transducer, but certain diffuse-field equalized tricks, and I can hear some of those colorations and trade-offs associated to that.

Claiming that people's units, other devices (hearing abilities) are "defective" is just one questionable statement (out of many).
If the last two pages were about something else rather than owners disagreeing with a member, I wouldn't even post a response, I don't consider myself a hater, I just think that all opinions make more sense as a collective.

 

[greggf]

Even the Omega is a bit bright (to a tolerable degree), but the X9000 is brighter and to my ears it reacts differently to increasing volume.
I still don't like blasting an Omega or 007 with rock, but that's simply how they work best. If I wanted to improve something, it would be to lower this threshold further, there is probably quite a bit room in the system to make a "healthier", (even) more "musical" sound. But I also need to consider the actual value of that investment worthwhile, otherwise I just continue to measure peak loudness from time to time (quite a few people who visit me tend to push it higher still...). Still, in my experience at least, headphone-related differences are still more apparent and fairly constant irrespective of other changes (for the most part, 007 can be an exception).

Some people don't have problems with brightness, fine - while Bob Katz thinks that on a Carbon, anything above an (early, darker, port-modded) SR-007 Mk2 (which he still used an EQ on to boost bass before Carbon...) can be considered bright.
To be honest, if I compare against speakers like he does, I think he's right.
I was listening to a classical recording sample explained by an audio engineer I know on monitor speakers - never heard it live to compare unfortunately, but when I put it on at home, I was surprised how much brighter my "balanced" perception was set before.
Whether headphone-based listening needs to mimic that or emphasize other benefits - or trying to keep some sort of balance between the two is another matter.

But, regarding the X9K, fact of the matter is, like Chefguru said, there were/are quite a handful of them (still) in the classifieds section, ebay and other sites and as far as I know, there still aren't that many on the market. (People didn't give me credit back then, we can look at the state now).
I don't have much idea about individual reasons why these sales happened, but it would be interesting to know nevertheless - apart from a few, where I directly asked, getting similar reasons to my impressions with differing systems.
This wouldn't happen if it was as great as people think as an all-rounder for almost everything. As an "estat emphasizing estat things" with certain recordings, it's different. Not denying that it hit a new technical level, from what I already considered to be very high anyway, it's an experience. I still listen to Lambdas regularly (not just with old recordings), as I don't find that aspect that important to musical enjoyment above a level that they do hit.
Also, the first impressions tends to be: "Who the staging is so good". Well, yes, but my long-term experience is that the "grandiose, separated" sound all Stax flagships tend to do is simply "not better", can be too holographic/distant a lot of the times (and I felt the X9000 was particularly "sliced"), and you can feel that it's just not quite how the recording was meant to be played. And it is not achieved by just having a big ass transducer, but certain diffuse-field equalized tricks, and I can hear some of those colorations and trade-offs associated to that.

Claiming that people's units, other devices (hearing abilities) are "defective" is just one questionable statement (out of many).
If the last two pages were about something else rather than owners disagreeing with a member, I wouldn't even post a response, I don't consider myself a hater, I just think that all opinions make more sense as a collective.

Well said. I am finally putting my X9000's up for sale. I prefer the 007mk2 and even the L700mk2 for their more holistic music-making abilities.

Interestingly, I'm having the same "separated", "sliced" effect from my Fink Team Borg loudspeakers, and am leaning toward the more musical Harbeth 40.3 XD's that are here. My wife leans more Harbeth-ward than even I do.

So I assume gear is getting technically "better", which makes it less suited for its purpose of playing music? Is it getting over-engineered? Are modern designers engineering geeks rather than musicians or music lovers? Why all the staccato, militarily-precise separation of musical notes and instruments all of a sudden? Simply because it can now be done? Or is it really "better"??

BUT . . . this is just me, and I, too, can see why others might love Borgs & X9000's & analysis/mastering.

 

[padam]

My original 'pamphlet' tried to view this from a different perspective, where my depiction of the X9k is like boosting clarity/saturation on a digital image and I can already see perfectly fine all the "relevant, important" information on a bigger format analog image with all the "grain" that is already imprinted on it.
With old Omegas I have more of a "personal choice" if I want to delve deep ("zoom") into recordings, while the X9k sure likes to flaunt it - even willing to trade it in for other things that I would much rather have. They have also reduced reflections in the bass etc., I can hear that improving texture even further, but it seems that the side effect on that there is just less of it. Maybe I am underestimating the power of the chain (tried as many as I could with the amount of access I have here), but I still feel that for me, a better starting point just makes life easier (I can't see myself not preferring an Omega on any, 'highly X9k-optimised' setup but I don't mind being proven wrong)

Also worth noting, I've followed this long before release (STAX buying Omegas, Edifier talking about Omegas) so maybe as an Omega owner my expectations were different.

There was an interesting video shared recently about X9k manufacturing. One thing is for sure, an Omega wasn't nearly as seamless to assemble (let alone making certain parts) with probably way more yields and failures.
So one thing is having the ability to make something, and another is what is actually feasible to manufacture to make a business case for itself.

And of course I would love to hear STAX's (honest) opinion from an Omega cloning perspective (both with regards to construction and also sound) whether they consider it at overwhelming success or something that they can tweak further in the next version.

From the POV of STAX, they can simply say: "Well, people (rightly or wrongly...) were already 'accepting' 009/009S and this is less bright, so we say it is a success."

Because while there is probably no magic secret sauce of improvement that takes certain things and does not change others, if there is ever going to be an X9000S, I believe they have resources to make it fuller, "more natural" (feel free to disagree but it's definitely not just me saying it) even if it slightly compromises other things (for us anyway).

 

[number1sixerfan]

Was quote responding to a post with the question of is gear just being made more technically, and then realized I'm thinking of something completely different lol

Unrelated to technical vs. musical and how gear is made today and a bit random, but something I've long thought about. But specifically for Stax, I think one major issue they've created for themselves, is that they have such a polarized fanbase stemming from such a mixed set of distinct TOTL product offerings. They modeled the x9000 after the Omegas which are also very unique, which again, neither of which are my preferred presentation (although for the last time, I think both are good, just like I think the 007 is good although it isn't my preferred presentation either).

Had they modeled their next TOTL after the 009, while being able to tone the brightness down a bit, I would've been ecstatic, as that's my preferred Stax presentation (L300/500/700 as well). Other people, particularly those that prefer the 007 and Omegas would've absolutely hated it. Had they modeled their new headphone after the 007, I wouldn't have loved that either. So unlike other brands that have a house or more well balanced sound typically, you just never see all stax loyalists on the same page.

I'm not making the above points to argue about which headphones are better or more correct, each one has their well deserved fanbase. But I think Stax would do themselves a better service by offering a less distinct TOTL, and a more well-balanced sound like we see in a lot of other TOTL headphones. (Susvara, Nutopia, CA-1a, etc.)

 

[jjshin23]

I agree with much you say but what if they come out with the x7000 to be in line with the 007 line. That might satisfy both camps?

 

[number1sixerfan]

I agree with much you say but what if they come out with the x7000 to be in line with the 007 line. That might satisfy both camps?

Quite honestly. I think if Stax were to model a TOTL after anything, the 007 would probably be best for the masses, with improved resolution/spacing and a slight tonality tilt in the direction of neutrality. That would probably be appreciated and loved by most.

Although again, I think they've done a really great job with the L300/L500/L700 line. Maybe just release an absolute TOTL in extension of that line and get back to their roots, without regard of if people find them bright or not lol. Either way, I think they need to find a consistent identity to sell.

 

[BTD1]

Speaking of the x9000 or the 007Mk2, does anyone go to sleep with these headphones on their head? I usually switch to dynamics or planers if I plan to drift off while listening, but I wonder if the risk of damage to the phones is too great, though, the 007s seem sturdily built.

 

[oneguy]

I’d be worried about putting stress on the cable entry to the headphones. Possible bending the grill as well depending on how you fall asleep.

 

[padam]

Quite honestly. I think if Stax were to model a TOTL after anything, the 007 would probably be best for the masses, with improved resolution/spacing and a slight tonality tilt in the direction of neutrality. That would probably be appreciated and loved by most.

All this changes to the a 007 sounding less like a 007. WIth regards to resolution and stage, there is nothing to improve to me. Dynamics could be better, but I don't think it is "outright weak" per se, this recent review agrees.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2023/10/review-stax-sr-007mk2/

For me the one and only worthwhile improvement is bass clarity (better amp certainly affects it, but still does not completely change it), just like how it is explained here:

Even though mine is a different early version, my perception is very similar (similar amp, too), except I really don't find anything about being dark or resolution to be "not enough" and I find the sound to be much more immersive and involving and the pacing to be more natural than more modern Staxes (EQ on an X9K certainly would not change that).

One physical improvement that they can do is interchangeable cables.
And it is unclear to me that they just "forgot to discontinue" this model, or it soldiers on (like 009S), yet it does not even "deserve" this small change.

If they can make it even more like an Mk1 with its "more exquisite" mids that is not "neutral" but a bit more "even", I might approve that. But I am not sure if it is possible if is tied to a material that they can't source anymore.
Even if with all the spring and port mod an Mk2 does not sound like the Mk1 and of course we all vaguely know about at least 5 different 007 versions, so they definitely do something with drivers that changes sound notably, despite not seeing anything on the outside.

At least in theory they can do the same with the X9000 but they have parts supply, so unless before suddenly refuse to buy them, they are not incentivized to change anything.
And as the Edifier guy said, the product cycle on a newly designed flagship is always running very long.

 

[WernerW]

Claiming that people's units, other devices (hearing abilities) are "defective" is just one questionable statement (out of many).
If the last two pages were about something else rather than owners disagreeing with a member, I wouldn't even post a response, I don't consider myself a hater, I just think that all opinions make more sense as a collective.

Padam,
my pseudo statement "You must have had a defective device " was meant ironically, so not at all with "bitter seriousness", because that is my personal way of taking things with a grain of salt, the hifi hobby should not be turned into a serious question of faith.
It is a hobby, no less and no more, it should be relaxed fun and not a battlefield . Soccer/baseball shouldn't either, btw
So, I respect all other opinions and tastes.

But what I meant seriously: Our personal tastes seem to be quite different. Or the music genres played on the headphones differ too much.
This is quite normal and nothing bad about it, people have different preferences and personal taste. And it's good that not all people have the same taste, it brings color and (hopefully peaceful) diversity to our world.

My own perception is that the X9k (even when driven by the Stax SRM-717, an amplifier typically considered a mediocre amplifier on this forum), when used with acoustic music, both classical chamber and classical orchestral, never sounds "thin", "analytical", or with a "distracting" timbre. Such extremely negative judgments do not apply when I listen to music through the X9k.

On the contrary, I've never heard better headphones for this genre of music (it sounds so musical to me, with a timbre like "heaven", I get goosebumps when listening to excellent music).
But that's just me.

I can understand that some people have a completely different perception and taste. As with music itself, one person loves classical music, another loves hip-hop or heavy metal. There can be no argument there.

For example, a friend of mine dislikes all the electrostats X9k, 009, all the Lambdas and even the SR-007Mk1 (="the other camp") and far prefers the sound of the 'Meze Empyrian' to all the Stax and other electrostats he has heard.
I don't like the 'Meze Empyrian', for me it sounds too "veiled", I like the E-Stat sparkling and with extreme resolution in terms of time, frequency and space.
But that's only me.
So I fully respect my friend's headphone taste.

By the way, I have several Stax headphones and also the SR-007Mk1.
And I love my 007Mk1 since I bought them 20 years ago.
They sound so creamy and have an "antique and noble sound impression", so wonderful
Therefore I love both opposite Stax representations, the 007Mk1 and the X9k.

However, I must admit that the X9k is imho two leagues above the 007Mk1 in terms of technical proficiency. Which is perhaps not surprising, because the last 10 years have been marked by extreme competition in the TOTL headphone business, planars, dynamics, e-stats, AMT, ribbons - so Stax has also had to respond to this competition and has intensified its R&D. The result is a modern headphone that is technically up to date and surpasses its older siblings.
But of course, technical proficiency isn't everything; the overall sonic signature and charisma also plays an important role, especially in music that is pure emotion.
So once again, I respect your differing opinion!

But I appeal to all headphone enthusiasts to please not claim "absolute truths", but to accept that it is a matter of personal taste when we are in a region of top technical excellence**).
Peace,
Werner

P.S.:
**)Of course, not all headphones are equally good, there are better and worse headphones. But when we are in the realm of absolute TOTLs or headphone/amp combinations that have extreme technical performance, we get into the realm of love or hate based on individual taste instead of “better vs worse” (my two cents).

 

[padam]

Well we agree to disagree.
As I just said, the only definite flaw I hear in the 007 is lesser bass presentation (by a notable degree). I don't notice this mentioned a lot, but I might be particularly hard on this, because it sticks out amongst not many other notable things. There are other characteristics (colorations) that are imho deliberate and make the character quite wonderful at times, but also slightly "velvety". So I can see why it can be just as if not more divisive as the X9000, it is also easy to dislike.
I also agree about dynamics being less than most other Stax flagships. However, this is not automatically worse in practice, much easier on the ears, one can also listen through a whole album without needing to re-adjust the volume. (Fatigue-free can't be a drawback, and the X9000 having "sensitive taste" in music is for the most part not advantageous.)
Soundstage for me is overall better (more natural) than the X9000.
Tonality is not neutral but way less artificial.
There is a certain magic that is there in the midrange 'focus' that is not present on the X9000 (or anything else for that matter). That for me is focusing the "music" part in the recording is what I perceive as "musical", although the vastly differing nature of recordings makes this hard to define. But figuring this one out makes the 007 more impressive than just judging it on a technical level.

And like the headphonesty review writes, the "007 sound" has less "gimmicks" than other Staxes. Unforced detail is there in spades (except some bass texture of course).

Well, previously I said the 007 is too different to compare against an X9000 I would say that I have less to dislike about it despite costing a lot less, and an Omega is an even bigger problem as it is less "characterful" as a 007 (in a good way), yet it still does not have nearly as much issues as an X9000, so it was quite easy to get disappointed right from the very first listen (but being alone, surrounded by differing opinions, but now opinions - regarding buying/selling - has definitely shifted): overall better bass, better tonality, better timing, 5% less clarity and texture, but a more homogenous, "slice-free","genre-free" presentation. So almost everything X9000 does differently, I just don't care for, as the Omega is mostly like that without the "gimmick" aspect. But if other people seem to need exactly that based on their experience, then it is what it is.

 

[number1sixerfan]

All this changes to the a 007 sounding less like a 007. WIth regards to resolution and stage, there is nothing to improve to me. Dynamics could be better, but I don't think it is "outright weak" per se, this recent review agrees.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2023/10/review-stax-sr-007mk2/

For sure. But in what I'm saying, it's not about it being a direct reflection of any of the previous models, as again they're all very distinct. The 007, compared to many other headphones is darker, really warm and not transparent (meaning not neutral in color, it certainly is resolving in a good chain and based on the various models). But it's very distinct. Those that love it, love it, and there are many that don't. That's the case for all of their TOTL models. Same thing with the 009 (again which I love, fully admit that many don't), Omega, etc.

But I do think because of issues people have with brightness, the 007 is a good platform to work for.. if you make it more well balanced just for the point that I was making about mass agreement/enjoyment--in its own right I know plenty of people love it as is.

 

[ruhian]

Was quote responding to a post with the question of is gear just being made more technically, and then realized I'm thinking of something completely different lol

Unrelated to technical vs. musical and how gear is made today and a bit random, but something I've long thought about. But specifically for Stax, I think one major issue they've created for themselves, is that they have such a polarized fanbase stemming from such a mixed set of distinct TOTL product offerings. They modeled the x9000 after the Omegas which are also very unique, which again, neither of which are my preferred presentation (although for the last time, I think both are good, just like I think the 007 is good although it isn't my preferred presentation either).

Had they modeled their next TOTL after the 009, while being able to tone the brightness down a bit, I would've been ecstatic, as that's my preferred Stax presentation (L300/500/700 as well). Other people, particularly those that prefer the 007 and Omegas would've absolutely hated it. Had they modeled their new headphone after the 007, I wouldn't have loved that either. So unlike other brands that have a house or more well balanced sound typically, you just never see all stax loyalists on the same page.

I'm not making the above points to argue about which headphones are better or more correct, each one has their well deserved fanbase. But I think Stax would do themselves a better service by offering a less distinct TOTL, and a more well-balanced sound like we see in a lot of other TOTL headphones. (Susvara, Nutopia, CA-1a, etc.)

To some.....ok not some.. just me, this is exactly what makes Stax standout vs the other brands that you've mentioned. Each flagship is unique, with specific design concepts. i.e. Omega was built to be a universal audio standard, 007 to have the most power and tonal density without losing the delicacy of the estat flavour etc...

Relentless experimentation, trying to create something special (vs. something with a safe tuning), a vibrant DIY community, and a higly loyal (but divided) fanbase.....that is Stax's identity to me.... convergence towards a house sound may make sense from a commercial perspective.....but given they have edifier's backing, I'd personally much prefer they retain their "artisanal" approach.