[Nomax]

Track 5

https://www.qobuz.com/at-de/album/candy-dulfer-live-in-amsterdam-candy-dulfer/0743218260827

NOMAX

 

[Audio Addict]

Or you just like the SR009 better than the CRBN. To make the claim that it is heavily amp dependent, you'd have to try the CRBN on a different amp.

In general I don't find the difference between amps with SR009 to be that significant, once you have a beefy enough energizer. It does sound better on a BHSE than SR 353X but the character of the headphone itself isn't hugely different. So I haven't heard the Ray Samuels amp that you have, maybe it's doing something very unusual.
The same is true for SR007. At moderate or low volume, you'd be hard pressed to find a huge difference between the 353X and a BHSE. Blasting the volume it is much more obvious. but the 007's basic character is still pretty much the same. So based on what you wrote, I am guessing you will always like the SR009 better than the CRBN. But there's one way to find out for sure

Prior to the latest version of A-10, I really had no desire to go down the e-stat rabbit hole. Both the 009 / 009s had been out for awhile. I heard the latest version in October 2019 and held out for a year but gave in during the fall 2020 and picked it up in December.

The only change was the A-10 revision that pushed me into this rabbit hole.

 

[xxx1313]

Somebody needs to hook the X9K with BHSE or Carbon with good source and give a review .The X9K produces quite deep bass but i have the feeling Nomax etc have a source problem.Some obscure reviews out there with 700S/X9K in Germany. If you need very deep bass look elsewhere maybe Skullcandy Crusher or similar and be happy with it .

I doubt that Nomax has a source problem. The headphone guru has access to nearly every source gear, imo. I also heard from a another guy who was able to listen to an X9K already that treble is tamed a bit compared to the SR-009, but that it still has less bass than the Susvara. The Susvara lacks impact imho, so the X9K with even less bass will not be to my liking for sure. So it seems to me that there are several db lacking in the bass range of the SR-X9000, and different source gear will not be able to add a few db of bass. And if it really did (without use of DSP), then it would be flawed itself.

Cheers,
Bernie

 

[townes]

I received my Stax SR-X9000 two days ago. Meanwhile I spent a few hours to compare my desktop headphone setup (D) to my main rig headphone setup (M).

In common for D and M is: Roon (OS: ROCK) fanless server with Ethernet connection to LAN. All files are stored locally (SSD in Roon server).
D: Desktop with JCAT USB XE card > Tambaqui DAC (in preamp mode) > Pass XA25 speaker amp > Arctic cable Integra > Susvara
M: Sonore Signature SE streamer (fiber optic Ethernet in, USB out) > emmLABS DA2 V2 DAC > Pass XP32 Tape Out > BHSE > Stax SR-X9000

Within Roon, both endpoints (Sonore and Tambaqui) were linked together to build a group, so the same music plays on both headphones at any time point.
I tried to adjust the volume for both setups to the same level as close as possible (using a 1kHz tone at -8dB).

I created a playlist, which consists of tracks I know well and which are also of good to excellent audio quality. But it’s not a playlist with the purpose to demonstrate audiophile quality. It's closer to an everyday playlist (see screenshots)

Previously (before ordering the new Stax) I had the SR-009. When comparing the same setups but M with SR-009, I had a hard time to select one over the other (Susvara vs. SR-009) both had their small advantages/disadvantages.

Here's what I think about the sonic differences SR-X9000 vs Susvara:

Talking about heights, mids and bass only is just insufficient vocabulary to describe the differences between these two setups.
Because this bass thingy is apparently so important to some people... I would say it's a tie. In the last song of my playlist (Mari Boine - Radiant Warmth) there's a drum at around 2:30 and later, which might have a tiny bit more impact in setup D (Susvara). Apart from this, it's really a tie for me. This is also valid for those tracks, which have low lows (for my taste), like the ones by Jeff Beck, Walela, Jessie Colter and Mari Boine (apart from a few seconds).

The main and clear difference in almost every track at any time point is the soundstage, i.e. the three dimensional space created by setup M is significantly larger than the one created by setup D. Therefore, M is more natural, more fluid and more involving. M has to my ears also better timbre, e.g., a cello sounds more like a real cello. D is also brighter (without offering more details in any frequency range). I think this might also be a consequence of the smaller soundstage, it's all closer together, even slightly flat (depth mainly).

M and D offer the same amount of details (no matter which frequency range). There's nothing I could hear on M, which I wasn't able to hear on D. What came to my mind is the analogy of two model trains. Both model trains are build with great care and show the same amount of details. But one model train is build to a greater scale, therefore this allows for an easier - effortless - presentation of the details. Overall, listening to setup M feels more real, hardly like a headphone anymore.

Playlist and setup of main rig:

 

[cat6man]

I received my Stax SR-X9000 two days ago. Meanwhile I spent a few hours to compare my desktop headphone setup (D) to my main rig headphone setup (M).

In common for D and M is: Roon (OS: ROCK) fanless server with Ethernet connection to LAN. All files are stored locally (SSD in Roon server).
D: Desktop with JCAT USB XE card > Tambaqui DAC (in preamp mode) > Pass XA25 speaker amp > Arctic cable Integra > Susvara
M: Sonore Signature SE streamer (fiber optic Ethernet in, USB out) > emmLABS DA2 V2 DAC > Pass XP32 Tape Out > BHSE > Stax SR-X9000

Within Roon, both endpoints (Sonore and Tambaqui) were linked together to build a group, so the same music plays on both headphones at any time point.
I tried to adjust the volume for both setups to the same level as close as possible (using a 1kHz tone at -8dB).

I created a playlist, which consists of tracks I know well and which are also of good to excellent audio quality. But it’s not a playlist with the purpose to demonstrate audiophile quality. It's closer to an everyday playlist (see screenshots)

Previously (before ordering the new Stax) I had the SR-009. When comparing the same setups but M with SR-009, I had a hard time to select one over the other (Susvara vs. SR-009) both had their small advantages/disadvantages.

Here's what I think about the sonic differences SR-X9000 vs Susvara:

Talking about heights, mids and bass only is just insufficient vocabulary to describe the differences between these two setups.
Because this bass thingy is apparently so important to some people... I would say it's a tie. In the last song of my playlist (Mari Boine - Radiant Warmth) there's a drum at around 2:30 and later, which might have a tiny bit more impact in setup D (Susvara). Apart from this, it's really a tie for me. This is also valid for those tracks, which have low lows (for my taste), like the ones by Jeff Beck, Walela, Jessie Colter and Mari Boine (apart from a few seconds).

The main and clear difference in almost every track at any time point is the soundstage, i.e. the three dimensional space created by setup M is significantly larger than the one created by setup D. Therefore, M is more natural, more fluid and more involving. M has to my ears also better timbre, e.g., a cello sounds more like a real cello. D is also brighter (without offering more details in any frequency range). I think this might also be a consequence of the smaller soundstage, it's all closer together, even slightly flat (depth mainly).

M and D offer the same amount of details (no matter which frequency range). There's nothing I could hear on M, which I wasn't able to hear on D. What came to my mind is the analogy of two model trains. Both model trains are build with great care and show the same amount of details. But one model train is build to a greater scale, therefore this allows for an easier - effortless - presentation of the details. Overall, listening to setup M feels more real, hardly like a headphone anymore.

Playlist and setup of main rig:

Nice review, thanks.

My only suggestion would be, if possible, to swap the DACs and see if that was responsible for the soundstage difference.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Yea, if you can, you want to review on the exact same chain, but nice impressions regardless.

Also, I don't know when bass became the main aspect of the spectrum people care about on the forums. I do think if that's the case for you, stats may not be for you and that's ok. I'll have to wait and see for myself, but I certainly didn't expect the x9000 to be leaps and bounds better base wise than say the 009. I didn't expect that out of the SGL either, and it's not. I believe Audeze has also already mentioned that the CRBN has less bass than the LCD-5. It just is what it is when it comes to stats. The 007 is the only exception to that (out of what I've heard/owned).

I'm much more interested in hearing more impressions about the mids and highs tbqh. That's where electrostatics truly shine..

 

[dleblanc343]

Yea, if you can, you want to review on the exact same chain, but nice impressions regardless.

Also, I don't know when bass became the main aspect of the spectrum people care about on the forums. I do think if that's the case for you, stats may not be for you and that's ok. I'll have to wait and see for myself, but I certainly didn't expect the x9000 to be leaps and bounds better base wise than say the 009. I didn't expect that out of the SGL either, and it's not. I believe Audeze has also already mentioned that the CRBN has less bass than the LCD-5. It just is what it is when it comes to stats. The 007 is the only exception to that (out of what I've heard/owned).

I'm much more interested in hearing more impressions about the mids and highs tbqh. That's where electrostatics truly shine..

I own both CRBN and LCD5 - CRBN has more bass and bass weight, which is a shocker.

But, it doesn’t have the same sub bass (roll offs below 80Hz more noticeably). It’s more midbassy (bass weight, presence). CRBN is warmer sounding.

What’s shocking as well is CRBN is more dynamic than LCD5 too, which makes LCD5 EQ discussion valid (I still think it sounds best stock or with a simple bass shelf).

I would rank Susvara and CRBN very close in performance, and LCD5 just slightly below. LCD5 does have the best FR of the lot, but sounds noticeably like a headphone whereas the other two play the illusion of being more than a headphone.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I own both CRBN and LCD5 - CRBN has more bass and bass weight, which is a shocker.

But, it doesn’t have the same sub bass (roll offs below 80Hz more noticeably). It’s more midbassy (bass weight, presence). CRBN is warmer sounding.

What’s shocking as well is CRBN is more dynamic than LCD5 too, which makes LCD5 EQ discussion valid (I still think it sounds best stock or with a simple bass shelf).

I would rank Susvara and CRBN very close in performance, and LCD5 just slightly below. LCD5 does have the best FR of the lot, but sounds noticeably like a headphone whereas the other two play the illusion of being more than a headphone.

Yea quite a few stats have great mid-bass. The 009 does for sure. But I sub-bass is what many are referring to when talking about bass. Stats typically roll off or feel as if they do. And perhaps that's what Audeze was talking about when they said it. But I can't wait to have each in hand to compare personally.

Either way, almost all of the impressions of the CRBN have seemed pretty favorable and positive. Congrats on already having both on had.

 

[Hubert481]

>>both on had
funny

 

[Trance_Gott]

I own both CRBN and LCD5 - CRBN has more bass and bass weight, which is a shocker.

But, it doesn’t have the same sub bass (roll offs below 80Hz more noticeably). It’s more midbassy (bass weight, presence). CRBN is warmer sounding.

What’s shocking as well is CRBN is more dynamic than LCD5 too, which makes LCD5 EQ discussion valid (I still think it sounds best stock or with a simple bass shelf).

I'm really thinking of changing my order to CRBN instead of LCD-5. Hm....

 

[takoyaki]

Today I had a short time to compare the Audeze LCD-5, Audeze CRBN and STAX SR-X9000.
LCD-5 still has a lot of low frequencies, and I didn't have the impression that CRBN was a substitute.

Electrostatic driver: STAX SRM-727A
Headphone Amplifier: MSB Premier Headphone Amplifier

 

[Spawn300Z]

Today I had a short time to compare the Audeze LCD-5, Audeze CRBN and STAX SR-X9000.
LCD-5 still has a lot of low frequencies, and I didn't have the impression that CRBN was a substitute.

Electrostatic driver: STAX SRM-727A
Headphone Amplifier: MSB Premier Headphone Amplifier

Can you tell us your thoughts on the CRBN vs SR-X9000? We know you didn’t spend a whole lot of time with them.

 

[takoyaki]

Can you tell us your thoughts on the CRBN vs SR-X9000? We know you didn’t spend a whole lot of time with them.

To be honest, when I compared CRBN directly with X9000, I had the impression that there was a big difference in sound quality and there were many inferior points.
The X9000 is the culmination of STAX's many years of study, but I think it is necessary for the newborn CRBN to steadily create sound quality as an audio product as well. I would like to look forward to it in the future.

 

[jsts]

I would say. X9K and 009 do share similar sound signature (tuning), inherent from STAX's gene But other than that, they are totally different headphones.

I won't say the different is marginal. Compare with X9000, the 009/009S is much forward sounding, with smaller soundstage and more focus on detail performance.

I won't say X9000 outperform at all aspect to 009/009S, but it is definitely a huge step for STAX. They finally focus more on the creating a whole picture of the music rather than force you to listen to a lot of details.

Rereading the topic and the feedback from headfiers, I am convinced that:

- when there was multibit DACs and tubes amps, STAX sought to make the most detailed headphones.

- when sigma-delta DACs and fast transistors conquered the market, STAX produced the more relaxed 9000.

I was able to soften my 009 with a tube and a multibit to finally listen to music instead of separate sounds.

I wonder if the 9000 on transistor and sigma-delta would sound like the 009 on tubes and multibit DAC?

 

[Sonic77]

Put my order in for the Blue Hawaii and the Stax X9000, it won't be until sometime in 2022 till I get to hear X9000 though, because of the back orders.