[MrHaelscheir]

Was wondering if any X9000 owner EQ his unit, and if so, with what settings?

I find I have good results on my 007A and 009 when applying convolution filters from AutoEQ. If only we had those for X9000....

I can say that at least when I took in-ear measurements at an audition, the FR was almost perfect relative to my personal neutral target. Assuming a good seal, it is virtually dead flat (for blocked ear canal measurements) between 70 Hz to 4 kHz other than an upper midrange elevation and some treble waviness, so if you want it to be more neutral, I would put the following parametric filters (immediately compatible with Equalizer APO):

# Bass shelf linearization filter assuming a good seal on your head:
Filter: ON LSC Fc 33 Hz Gain 5.80 dB Q 0.710

# General bass shelf; adjust to taste:
Filter: ON LSC Fc 100 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 0.670

# General lower midrange adjustments to correct for thinness or excessive fullness or bloat:
Filter: ON PK Fc 300.0 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 0.500
Filter: ON PK Fc 600.0 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 0.700

# These are the filters for flattening the upper midrange boost which I attribute to the leather inner lining of the pads:
Filter: ON PK Fc 626.0 Hz Gain 1.20 dB Q 10.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 763.0 Hz Gain -1.40 dB Q 5.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 1132 Hz Gain -3.50 dB Q 2.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 1667 Hz Gain -1.30 dB Q 5.000

# Adjust the below filter's gain depending on the 3 kHz peak adjustments; e.g. change it to 2.30 dB if you choose to not apply the next two filters:
Filter: ON PK Fc 2809 Hz Gain 4.80 dB Q 2.000

# 3 kHz peak adjustments; this is best adjusted by ear by checking if you hear a 3 kHz peak in sine sweeps or pink noise:
Filter: ON PK Fc 2472 Hz Gain -2.60 dB Q 6.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 2858 Hz Gain -5.50 dB Q 4.000

# Optional ear-gain boost toward free-field levels; adjust to taste (2024-05-05: Outdated/incorrect; see https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rec...-virtualization.890719/page-121#post-18027627 (post #1,812)):
Filter: ON PK Fc 2300 Hz Gain 5.00 dB Q 1.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 4000 Hz Gain 6.00 dB Q 1.000

# The following smoothening of the area between 5 kHz to 7 kHz may depend on your own ears and is best adjusted by ear with sine sweeps or pink noise:
Filter: ON PK Fc 4500 Hz Gain -1.70 dB Q 7.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 5377 Hz Gain 2.70 dB Q 7.000
Filter: ON PK Fc 6602 Hz Gain -4.60 dB Q 5.000

# The below filter flattens a peak measured on my ear prior to applying an optional high shelf filter for getting top octave levels closer to my Meze Elite; you can also adjust this by ear:
Filter: ON PK Fc 11000 Hz Gain -4.00 dB Q 6.000
Filter: ON HSC Fc 13605 Hz Gain 5.70 dB Q 0.710

This is the style of EQed flat that had me preferring my EQed Meze Elite's presentation over the Sennheiser HE-1's.

 

[gammi]

Was wondering if any X9000 owner EQ his unit, and if so, with what settings?

I find I have good results on my 007A and 009 when applying convolution filters from AutoEQ. If only we had those for X9000....

I will be sending my X9000 (and SR-007) to Mitch at Accurate Sound in March to create a convolution filter for it. So everyone here should have access to a perfectly flat EQ by April.

I also have a pair of MiniDSP EARS I've been meaning to do some sweeps on in the meantime, and I want to do some sweeps on my head and adjust by ear.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

I will be sending my X9000 (and SR-007) to Mitch at Accurate Sound in March to create a convolution filter for it. So everyone here should have access to a perfectly flat EQ by April.

I also have a pair of MiniDSP EARS I've been meaning to do some sweeps on in the meantime.

While Mitch's filters are probably quite more precise than the manual or REW AutoEQ PEQ filters I personally set up, I would be concerned for HRTF differences between the filter developer's ears and your own, potentially undoing the utility of the precise filters or what I suppose to be subjective upper treble adjustments. And "perfectly flat" for blocked canal ear measurements is probably limited to 5 kHz or 6 kHz, which might be what they are doing before manual adjustment, but that also wouldn't be representative of a perfect 90-degree HRTF. In https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-susvara-headphone-review.50705/post-1850477 (posts #1,085 and 1,088), I compare my linear PEQ to the HE1000se FR and some in-ear measurements of my Genelec 8341As. True flat up to 6 kHz probably gives a good approximation of Harman with less bass, but may still not be truly consistent with the ear's response to speaker flat. And I suppose Mitch's service is to be used when one is not specifically looking for actual speaker HRTF crossfeed like one can get with Impulcifier.

 

[bnb110]

Was wondering if any X9000 owner EQ his unit, and if so, with what settings?

I find I have good results on my 007A and 009 when applying convolution filters from AutoEQ. If only we had those for X9000....

My advice is if you can afford X9000 and still want to do some EQ, it's better to measure your own in-ear response, it will be 100% of your own HRTF not some approximately averaged response from measurement rig.

This is my measurement result compensated to the in-ear response from speakers, ignore <50Hz because I didn't measure speakers with sub:

The 1Khz peak is common for Stax headphones, I use PK 1100Hz Gain -4.0dB Q 1.5 to reduce this peak, it pulls the vocal and some instrument back, makes X9000 less intimate but the overall sound signature become more natural.
I also use LSQ 50Hz Gain 6.0 Q0.5 and PK 50Hz Gain -3.0 Q 1.0 to improve the sub bass extension, it brings X9000 more depth and everything is more impactful, the downside is it requires -6.0dB preamp to avoid clipping so it makes X9000 even harder to drive. If you can get a very good seal from X9000's BIG earcup probably don't need this.
I also tried other adjustments, but the effect was minor, for now I only use above settings.

 

[Svperstar]

The Audeze LCD-2 non-leather earpads are the best earpads I have ever used out of all of my headphones. They transform the sound of the LCD-2.
https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-ear-pads?variant=31762697093198

Any bored X9000 owners want to take the plunge and see if you can make them fit on the X9000? They are too big for my 007 but I think perfect for the X9000.

 

[gammi]

The Audeze LCD-2 non-leather earpads are the best earpads I have ever used out of all of my headphones. They transform the sound of the LCD-2.
https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-ear-pads?variant=31762697093198

Any bored X9000 owners want to take the plunge and see if you can make them fit on the X9000? They are too big for my 007 but I think perfect for the X9000.

Do you know if these are the same pads they use on the LCD-R? They look similar. If so I could pull the pads off of mine and try on the X9000

 

[Svperstar]

Do you know if these are the same pads they use on the LCD-R? They look similar. If so I could pull the pads off of mine and try on the X9000

No idea, I just know Audeze leather pads aren't as good as the non-leather pads.

 

[Chefguru]

Do you know if these are the same pads they use on the LCD-R? They look similar. If so I could pull the pads off of mine and try on the X9000

Pretty sure the lcd pads are glued on, so not the best idea

 

[Royal Navy]

Was wondering if any X9000 owner EQ his unit, and if so, with what settings?

I find I have good results on my 007A and 009 when applying convolution filters from AutoEQ. If only we had those for X9000....

I've EQ'd both my x9000 and 007. After diving into the world of electrostatic headphones following my ownership of the Susvara, Utopia, HD800s, and some great IEMs, I felt a bit disappointed to find that their bass was lacking prominence. At first, I thought it was because I didn't have an amp with enough power to drive them properly. But after getting myself a T2, things didn't improve as much as I had hoped, so I had to work around with EQ.

I searched repeatedly and then I found this post: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/stax-sr-x9000.959852/post-17458633 by @Dynamo5561 .
The gentleman was very kind in guiding me on how to EQ according to my preferences when I inboxed him to ask for more details.

And now I couldn't be happier. You can try using the EQ profile I'm currently using or create your own using AutoEQ. (I've attached the measurements file to this post.)

Here's the measurement graph of the X9000 and the EQ target. (source: https://www.woodenears.com/list?category)

Here's the EQ profile.

Preamp: -12.1 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 22 Hz Gain 12.0 dB Q 0.900
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 34 Hz Gain 1.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 42 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 3.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 62 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 3.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 180 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 0.500
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 830 Hz Gain -1.6 dB Q 3.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1200 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 2.800
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 2400 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 2.500
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3400 Hz Gain -0.7 dB Q 3.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 7100 Hz Gain -3.9 dB Q 3.000

GraphicEQ: 20 -0.4; 21 -0.1; 22 0.0; 23 -0.1; 24 -0.4; 26 -1.0; 27 -1.7; 29 -2.4; 30 -3.1; 32 -3.8; 34 -4.6; 36 -5.7; 38 -6.9; 40 -8.1; 43 -8.9; 45 -9.2; 48 -9.3; 50 -9.4; 53 -9.6; 56 -9.9; 59 -10.3; 63 -10.5; 66 -10.4; 70 -10.3; 74 -10.2; 78 -10.2; 83 -10.1; 87 -10.1; 92 -10.1; 97 -10.1; 103 -10.1; 109 -10.1; 115 -10.1; 121 -10.1; 128 -10.1; 136 -10.1; 143 -10.1; 151 -10.2; 160 -10.2; 169 -10.2; 178 -10.2; 188 -10.2; 199 -10.3; 210 -10.3; 222 -10.4; 235 -10.4; 248 -10.5; 262 -10.6; 277 -10.7; 292 -10.7; 309 -10.8; 326 -10.9; 345 -11.0; 364 -11.1; 385 -11.1; 406 -11.2; 429 -11.3; 453 -11.4; 479 -11.5; 506 -11.6; 534 -11.7; 565 -11.8; 596 -11.9; 630 -12.1; 665 -12.3; 703 -12.6; 743 -13.0; 784 -13.4; 829 -13.6; 875 -13.6; 924 -13.4; 977 -13.3; 1032 -13.3; 1090 -13.5; 1151 -13.7; 1216 -13.7; 1284 -13.4; 1357 -13.0; 1433 -12.6; 1514 -12.3; 1599 -12.0; 1689 -11.7; 1784 -11.4; 1885 -11.0; 1991 -10.6; 2103 -10.0; 2221 -9.5; 2347 -9.1; 2479 -9.2; 2618 -9.7; 2766 -10.3; 2921 -10.9; 3086 -11.5; 3260 -11.9; 3443 -12.2; 3637 -12.3; 3842 -12.3; 4058 -12.3; 4287 -12.3; 4528 -12.4; 4783 -12.5; 5052 -12.6; 5337 -12.8; 5637 -13.2; 5955 -13.6; 6290 -14.3; 6644 -15.3; 7018 -15.9; 7414 -15.6; 7831 -14.7; 8272 -13.9; 8738 -13.2; 9230 -12.9; 9749 -12.6; 10298 -12.5; 10878 -12.4; 11490 -12.3; 12137 -12.2; 12821 -12.2; 13543 -12.2; 14305 -12.1; 15110 -12.1; 15961 -12.1; 16860 -12.1; 17809 -12.1; 18812 -12.1; 19871 -12.1

 

[Svperstar]

But after getting myself a T2, things didn't improve as much as I had hoped, so I had to work around with EQ.

See you have what is as far as I know the beefiest most powerful estat amp and it didn't improve things as much as some EQ, when I went from the T1S to the 717 was very excited to hear "the best amp Stax ever made". It did improve clarity for sure and stuff gets louder but it didn't radically transform the cans the way EQ can.

 

[SolarCetacean]

I had an interesting discussion with @number1sixerfan in his thread about whether the X9000 was more forward than the Susvara. I thought, based on my private demo of them in December, that the X9000 was more forward, while he and another user disagreed. I don't have the Susvara in my collection, but the SGL Jr is pretty similar in overall sound, so I used that for comparison.

I agree with him now that the X9000 is very track dependent in terms of its forwardness because vocals in particular are very forward. This is because it has an emphasis in the vocal body range, so it images vocals much closer than the rest of the sounds. This trips up my sense of forwardness, because I do not like forward vocals. Thus, as the spatial distance between me and the vocals is smaller, I get the sense that the X9000 is more forward. But the rest of the spectrum is spatially further out compared to the SGL Jr. and there is more bass on the X9000, so for songs that don't have vocals mixed front and center, the X9000 does sound recessed in the midrange compared to the Jr. Thus, the Jr will sound more forward overall on those tracks, because the background sounds are closer than on the X9000. I usually listen to vocal EDM (some of my eval songs were "Back to You (feat. Kiiara)" by Ekali and "Lay It Down (feat. Krewella & SLANDER)" by Illenium), so the vocal forwardness of the X9000 makes a bigger impact there, but when I was listening to the Final Fantasy XV OST, I noticed that instruments sounded further away and recessed compared to listening on the SGL Jr.

I view this as a symptom of the X9000's extreme spatial layering of sounds. It's like a diagram of the solar system where there's the sun in the center and the planets orbiting around it. On the X9000, vocals are the sun, the center of the image, and everything else orbits around them at varying distances. The Jr also has layering, but it's not as pronounced or extreme. It's like a rainbow - there are the different bands of sound each in a different position, but it's still an arc without an object in the center.

As much as I can dissect the sound and analyze its drawbacks, when I'm listening to the X9000, I find it extremely addicting. I love that layered, "cloud of sound" effect, and I don't even mind the more forward vocals on the X9000 because they sound so open that it doesn't bother me. Maybe it's because I grew up with video games, and with many character-based video games, the idea that sound will be all around you is intuitive and natural, so I don't perceive the "pulled-apart" layering to be a distraction, but rather an immersive factor.

I also find the X9000 to be a step above any of my other headphones in terms of detail. I didn't notice the detail resolution when I was demoing it, and I didn't make the purchase because I thought it would be more detailed, and I think detail has a large psychoacoustic component anyways (like camouflage in terms of your brain recognizing sounds as musical elements), but when listening at home, it just sounds more detailed. With a lot of the EDM I listen to, there's a sort of white noise in the background of the track, and the X9000 can resolve rhythms within the noise. So it's not just "SHshSHshSH" modulating noise, it's "sh-sh-Shhh, sh-sh-Sshhh" with a rhythm. I don't even know if that was an intended rhythm or not, but I can hear it, and I like what I'm hearing.

This past weekend, I was able to listen to the X9000 on the LTA Z10e at a meet, and I liked it. The bass was more pronounced on the Z10e. It wasn't as punchy because I was using a different DAC (my Ferrum Erco is unusually punchy IMO), but there was more body to the bass and lower frequencies compared to my CCS-modded SRM-006tS. The Z10e certainly warrants another demo, and I'm close enough to the LTA office that it wouldn't be hard to book a demo appointment.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

I have a feeling that my hearing generally separates headphone tonality or timbral cues from "actual" imaged distance within recordings as related to actual recorded or mixed crossfeed and phase cues. EQing a region down can cause those instruments to "sound" "further", but for the most part image from the same place, so that perhaps limits my perception of "layering". "Worst case", I might someday come to find the DAC/amp to be to blame.

 

[SolarCetacean]

I have a feeling that my hearing generally separates headphone tonality or timbral cues from "actual" imaged distance within recordings as related to actual recorded or mixed crossfeed and phase cues. EQing a region down can cause those instruments to "sound" "further", but for the most part image from the same place, so that perhaps limits my perception of "layering". "Worst case", I might someday come to find the DAC/amp to be to blame.

There's part of that at play here too. The SGL Jr has a recession in the 1-2K range, while the X9000 has an emphasis around 1K. There is more body to vocals, which is part of why they sound closer-in. The Jr has less body, which my brain interprets at greater distance. More importantly for me, the added body to the X9000's vocals gives them a sense of being sung "at" me, while the Jr makes vocals sound like they're being sung "into the room". That is another part of how forward a sound appears to me, a sound being projected at me will sound more forward than a sound being "reserved" or diffuse in its presentation.

On layering, I'm going to guess that we simply have different neural activations when hearing things. When I was experimenting with EQ on the SGL Jr and the spatial layering of vocals vs instruments was lost when I EQed to Harman. Harman tuning flattened out the imaging to me, so that all elements were in an even arc in front of me and sounded more projected/forward, while the stock tuning placed vocals slightly in front of the instruments (though not to the same degree as the X9000), and each element became more diffuse or "blooming" spatially.

I've actually found most of the two-channel speaker setups that I've heard to have subjectively worse (at least, less obvious) layering than my headphones, so in that way I probably prefer headphone presentation over speaker presentation. Speakers have more soundstage and very "physical" and "volumetric" imaging for sure, but the sense of layering is not as pronounced.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

I've actually found most of the two-channel speaker setups that I've heard to have subjectively worse (at least, less obvious) layering than my headphones, so in that way I probably prefer headphone presentation over speaker presentation. Speakers have more soundstage and very "physical" and "volumetric" imaging for sure, but the sense of layering is not as pronounced.

That increase of distance and forward presentation to the compromise of "layering" cues is also what I get from HRTF-based speaker virtualization through headphones, though I still much prefer it for symphonic immersion, and some recordings can have more convincing timbral or reverb cues for more distant instruments. I suppose the question is of whether layering in headphones is more of an "illusion" of varying distance related to tonality rather than a "revelation" of actual distance cues in the recording.

 

[devilboy]

Listened to the SR-X9000 driven by the Metaxas & Sins headphone amp in Florida last weekend.
Hans down the best I've ever heard the SR-X9000. I would even go as far as to say it was one of the best sounds I've ever heard in my life.
And yes, that's me adjusting left and right volume control on the female headphone amplifier.

Amplifier was $29,000.