[orcawithabat]

They pop up used in the classifieds here from time to time for reasonable prices. I think I actually saw one just a few days ago. But yea, a good and capable amp is going to be a pretty significant upgrade to the 323s for the 007. x9000 isn't as hard to drive at all, but as mentioned in general stats just aren't easy to drive.

I didn’t know that, I’ll Take a look there then thank you!

 

[padam]

May I ask what is the sonic difference between SR-OMEGA to X9000 please?

There are similarities certainly. Both have a grand-scale, more distant type of presentation.
But you can tell: one is possibly the very best of old Stax (more musical like the 007) while the other is the very best of new Stax (more analytical like the 009)

Think of it as looking at a sharp digital image "wow, this looks so clear" versus something that may not grab you as it might look as sharp at first glance.
But if you start look at it closely (gently blow off a bit of dust), you realise it is just as detailed (if not slightly more!). Like it was taken with a larger format film camera.

The Omega is blending what's great about a monitor and a more relaxed, musical headphone. The resolution is insanely high (in an unassuming way, just makes it more shocking when you realise it), very well-balanced (apart from a slight upper-mid glare depending on the setup and a bit uneven treble, but the way the treble is sweetly presented is very appealing). Quantum leap from anything else that've made before. But surprisingly docile, easy to live with. Does not bite your head off, if you plug it into a bog-standard source and amp. There is a lot to unleash, but still sounds agreeable. Even more forgiving than the 007, which as I wrote is more sensitive towards both amp and source (but it may be even more rewarding in the end). The pacing is slower, but not slow at all, may sound a bit less alien/ethereal to non-estat people (who tend to gravitate towards a 007/CRBN). The separation is slightly vague, but there is more cohesion, easier to hear the music as a whole. Does not have the depth and focus of the 007. As a whole, there is a hint of looseness, softness, delicacy, slightly scaled back dynamics, call it whatever you want, but this results in a presentation that is quite emotional and beautiful, even tear inducing. The bass is just as magnificent today as it was three decades ago (even better with the newest systems), only slightly exaggerated, but there is a lot there, great with rock or metal. It has this versatility of being addictive (better be careful with that volume knob...), kind of stretching the boundaries of what can be achieved with a headphone. But at other times you can just forget about it, and just listen to the music (the 007 can do this aspect even better).

With the X9000 the upper regions have been softened compared to the 009, so it is more refined in that sense. But nothing else is dialled back in terms of sweetening that sound. It is "ultra pacey", foot tapping with things like fast-paced jazz. It is more immediate, there is more intensity, not quite as nuanced and peaceful. There is a just lot going on that demands your attention which can feel less natural, getting serious, no time for weeping here. Depth ability has been regained, so depending on the recording, it can sound even bigger than the Omega. There is even more clarity, amazing macro & micro dynamics, but (in comparison to the Omega) there is a slight sense of "dryness" that is associated with electrostatic timbre in general. Same with the separation, it is incredibly easy to distinguish things, but the sense of cohesion has been reduced. The bass is probably the most textured and localised I've heard. Precision has been markedly improved, however, there is not quite as much heft there. It is not harsh, but a bit brighter, thinner and "harder", a bit more technical sounding in comparison, being more sensitive even to the type of recording it prefers. But when those "click in", there is simply no energy left to pay any attention to its foibles. I think they can tune it to be more universal (natural), that was my first impression that bothered me, but it's probably the same with pretty much every new headphone, maybe it's just the Omega being more lenient as usual.

So, in summary: if you are looking for musicality with the X9000 (at least, in comparison to an older Stax that you might think of as more muddy, and might not even care for too much), you might need to figure out how to add that in. It takes no prisoners regarding the system, but it might work out in the end. It is beautifully built. It uses the latest technology. There is still a lot to respect here, and I hope I can evaluate it on other systems.
Or maybe I am just looking at the wrong side of the coin. And the whole point is that will undoubtedly do absolutely otherworldly insane things out of a DIY T2 (great timing for the HeadAmp Grand Cayman as well) and a suitable source - but its old nemesis is probably just as jaw-dropping in a different, more delicate way.


Just adding my 5c to previous points: imho the Omega in the classifieds is fairly priced, given it status and how easy it is to set up and improve later, and just how good it really is today with such a wide range of musical material (and just that timelessly beautiful look). Anyone having the means to afford one besides an X9000 and valuing musicality: imho it is worth having. It is not an HE90, but it does not need to be. They both excel in different things, just like the R10 does (I assume). The question marks over it's longevity will always be there, but at least it might be less stressful, considering that there are a handful of skilled people who can work on these.

 

[Chefguru]

There are similarities certainly. Both have a grand-scale, more distant type of presentation.
But you can tell: one is possibly the very best of old Stax (more musical like the 007) while the other is the very best of new Stax (more analytical like the 009)

Think of it as looking at a sharp digital image "wow, this looks so clear" versus something that may not grab you as it might look as sharp at first glance.
But if you start look at it closely (gently blow off a bit of dust), you realise it is just as detailed (if not slightly more!). Like it was taken with a larger format film camera.

The Omega is blending what's great about a monitor and a more relaxed, musical headphone. The resolution is insanely high (in an unassuming way, just makes it more shocking when you realise it), very well-balanced (apart from a slight upper-mid glare depending on the setup and a bit uneven treble, but the way the treble is sweetly presented is very appealing). Quantum leap from anything else that've made before. But surprisingly docile, easy to live with. Does not bite your head off, if you plug it into a bog-standard source and amp. There is a lot to unleash, but still sounds agreeable. Even more forgiving than the 007, which as I wrote is more sensitive towards both amp and source (but it may be even more rewarding in the end). The pacing is slower, but not slow at all, may sound a bit less alien/ethereal to non-estat people (who tend to gravitate towards a 007/CRBN). The separation is slightly vague, but there is more cohesion, easier to hear the music as a whole. Does not have the depth and focus of the 007. As a whole, there is a hint of looseness, softness, delicacy, slightly scaled back dynamics, call it whatever you want, but this results in a presentation that is quite emotional and beautiful, even tear inducing. The bass is just as magnificent today as it was three decades ago (even better with the newest systems), only slightly exaggerated, but there is a lot there, great with rock or metal. It has this versatility of being addictive (better be careful with that volume knob...), kind of stretching the boundaries of what can be achieved with a headphone. But at other times you can just forget about it, and just listen to the music (the 007 can do this aspect even better).

With the X9000 the upper regions have been softened compared to the 009, so it is more refined in that sense. But nothing else is dialled back in terms of sweetening that sound. It is "ultra pacey", foot tapping with things like fast-paced jazz. It is more immediate, there is more intensity, not quite as nuanced and peaceful. There is a just lot going on that demands your attention which can feel less natural, getting serious, no time for weeping here. Depth ability has been regained, so depending on the recording, it can sound even bigger than the Omega. There is even more clarity, amazing macro & micro dynamics, but (in comparison to the Omega) there is a slight sense of "dryness" that is associated with electrostatic timbre in general. Same with the separation, it is incredibly easy to distinguish things, but the sense of cohesion has been reduced. The bass is probably the most textured and localised I've heard. Precision has been markedly improved, however, there is not quite as much heft there. It is not harsh, but a bit brighter, thinner and "harder", a bit more technical sounding in comparison, being more sensitive even to the type of recording it prefers. But when those "click in", there is simply no energy left to pay any attention to its foibles. I think they can tune it to be more universal (natural), that was my first impression that bothered me, but it's probably the same with pretty much every new headphone, maybe it's just the Omega being more lenient as usual.

So, in summary: if you are looking for musicality with the X9000 (at least, in comparison to an older Stax that you might think of as more muddy, and might not even care for too much), you might need to figure out how to add that in. It takes no prisoners regarding the system, but it might work out in the end. It is beautifully built. It uses the latest technology. There is still a lot to respect here, and I hope I can evaluate it on other systems.
Or maybe I am just looking at the wrong side of the coin. And the whole point is that will undoubtedly do absolutely otherworldly insane things out of a DIY T2 (great timing for the HeadAmp Grand Cayman as well) and a suitable source - but its old nemesis is probably just as jaw-dropping in a different, more delicate way.


Just adding my 5c to previous points: imho the Omega in the classifieds is fairly priced, given it status and how easy it is to set up and improve later, and just how good it really is today with such a wide range of musical material (and just that timelessly beautiful look). Anyone having the means to afford one besides an X9000 and valuing musicality: imho it is worth having. It is not an HE90, but it does not need to be. They both excel in different things, just like the R10 does (I assume). The question marks over it's longevity will always be there, but at least it might be less stressful, considering that there are a handful of skilled people who can work on these.

Best thing I’ve read on here in a long time.

 

[eee1111]

Got a bunch new tubes for the BHSE

Tonight is x9k night

 

[BTD1]

This is to follow up on my experiences so far with the Shangri-La vs the x9000. I am fairly new to estats and I have been on a quest to understand what makes estats in general and Stax headphones in particular unique. Now that I have the SGL for comparison, I think I have a better idea. For me, with classical music, the x9000s produce an ethereal, lighter textured but sweet sound unlike any other headphone I own. I get that this sound would not suit itself to all musical genres, but there is just nothing like it for my preferred types of music. Even the brilliance of the SGL is different from this airy Stax sound. The SGL is weightier, brighter and it, too, is crystal clear and detailed, however, that special delicacy the x9000s are capable of is not as apparent with the SGLs. I am listening to the x9000s as I write this (string quintet with double bass) and I am marveling at how even and separated the individual instruments are. The timbre of each instrument is just right. Others have said the SGL is an improved Susvara and I agree. It is wonderful in that it does everything the Susvara does but better. If I am going to listen to a full out romantic era symphony, I will choose the SGL. Given more listening time, I’ll figure out how much a truly high end DAC will influence what I am hearing. But for now, my listening will concentrate on just these two headphones. I went through a lot of headphones to get to this point and I don’t regret it. Given how well the x9000 performs, I think it is a bargain compared to the SGL. Of course, it’s all a matter of personal taste and preference.

 

[Trance_Gott]

This is to follow up on my experiences so far with the Shangri-La vs the x9000. I am fairly new to estats and I have been on a quest to understand what makes estats in general and Stax headphones in particular unique. Now that I have the SGL for comparison, I think I have a better idea. For me, with classical music, the x9000s produce an ethereal, lighter textured but sweet sound unlike any other headphone I own. I get that this sound would not suit itself to all musical genres, but there is just nothing like it for my preferred types of music. Even the brilliance of the SGL is different from this airy Stax sound. The SGL is weightier, brighter and it, too, is crystal clear and detailed, however, that special delicacy the x9000s are capable of is not as apparent with the SGLs. I am listening to the x9000s as I write this (string quintet with double bass) and I am marveling at how even and separated the individual instruments are. The timbre of each instrument is just right. Others have said the SGL is an improved Susvara and I agree. It is wonderful in that it does everything the Susvara does but better. If I am going to listen to a full out romantic era symphony, I will choose the SGL. Given more listening time, I’ll figure out how much a truly high end DAC will influence what I am hearing. But for now, my listening will concentrate on just these two headphones. I went through a lot of headphones to get to this point and I don’t regret it. Given how well the x9000 performs, I think it is a bargain compared to the SGL. Of course, it’s all a matter of personal taste and preference.

Do you would say the X9000 is great for Rock, Pop and Metal?

 

[BassicScience]

This is to follow up on my experiences so far with the Shangri-La vs the x9000. I am fairly new to estats and I have been on a quest to understand what makes estats in general and Stax headphones in particular unique. Now that I have the SGL for comparison, I think I have a better idea. For me, with classical music, the x9000s produce an ethereal, lighter textured but sweet sound unlike any other headphone I own. I get that this sound would not suit itself to all musical genres, but there is just nothing like it for my preferred types of music. Even the brilliance of the SGL is different from this airy Stax sound. The SGL is weightier, brighter and it, too, is crystal clear and detailed, however, that special delicacy the x9000s are capable of is not as apparent with the SGLs. I am listening to the x9000s as I write this (string quintet with double bass) and I am marveling at how even and separated the individual instruments are. The timbre of each instrument is just right. Others have said the SGL is an improved Susvara and I agree. It is wonderful in that it does everything the Susvara does but better. If I am going to listen to a full out romantic era symphony, I will choose the SGL. Given more listening time, I’ll figure out how much a truly high end DAC will influence what I am hearing. But for now, my listening will concentrate on just these two headphones. I went through a lot of headphones to get to this point and I don’t regret it. Given how well the x9000 performs, I think it is a bargain compared to the SGL. Of course, it’s all a matter of personal taste and preference.

This mirrors my impressions of X9000 vs. SGL very closely. The muscularity and grip of the SGL gives it the edge with large-scale symphonic music. The X9000 was generally my preferred choice for chamber music. Imaging of ensembles in all dimensions is pretty much unparalleled with the X9000, although the SGL is also excellent in that department. I've got an X9000 on order, and am seriously considering purchase of an SGL as well.

 

[number1sixerfan]

This is to follow up on my experiences so far with the Shangri-La vs the x9000. I am fairly new to estats and I have been on a quest to understand what makes estats in general and Stax headphones in particular unique. Now that I have the SGL for comparison, I think I have a better idea. For me, with classical music, the x9000s produce an ethereal, lighter textured but sweet sound unlike any other headphone I own. I get that this sound would not suit itself to all musical genres, but there is just nothing like it for my preferred types of music. Even the brilliance of the SGL is different from this airy Stax sound. The SGL is weightier, brighter and it, too, is crystal clear and detailed, however, that special delicacy the x9000s are capable of is not as apparent with the SGLs. I am listening to the x9000s as I write this (string quintet with double bass) and I am marveling at how even and separated the individual instruments are. The timbre of each instrument is just right. Others have said the SGL is an improved Susvara and I agree. It is wonderful in that it does everything the Susvara does but better. If I am going to listen to a full out romantic era symphony, I will choose the SGL. Given more listening time, I’ll figure out how much a truly high end DAC will influence what I am hearing. But for now, my listening will concentrate on just these two headphones. I went through a lot of headphones to get to this point and I don’t regret it. Given how well the x9000 performs, I think it is a bargain compared to the SGL. Of course, it’s all a matter of personal taste and preference.

I remember when you were about ready to give up on stats after the CRBN and trying to nudge you to try a few other more traditional stats. It's nice to see your journey. I think you had the 007 at some point as well? Either way, glad you stuck with it all.

 

[BTD1]

I remember when you were about ready to give up on stats after the CRBN and trying to nudge you to try a few other more traditional stats. It's nice to see your journey. I think you had the 007 at some point as well? Either way, glad you stuck with it all.

It really has been a lot of fun! I still use the 007mk2s sometimes. It's a different sound but still interesting and musical depending on what you're listening to.

 

[hifixman]

There are similarities certainly. Both have a grand-scale, more distant type of presentation.
But you can tell: one is possibly the very best of old Stax (more musical like the 007) while the other is the very best of new Stax (more analytical like the 009)

Think of it as looking at a sharp digital image "wow, this looks so clear" versus something that may not grab you as it might look as sharp at first glance.
But if you start look at it closely (gently blow off a bit of dust), you realise it is just as detailed (if not slightly more!). Like it was taken with a larger format film camera.

The Omega is blending what's great about a monitor and a more relaxed, musical headphone. The resolution is insanely high (in an unassuming way, just makes it more shocking when you realise it), very well-balanced (apart from a slight upper-mid glare depending on the setup and a bit uneven treble, but the way the treble is sweetly presented is very appealing). Quantum leap from anything else that've made before. But surprisingly docile, easy to live with. Does not bite your head off, if you plug it into a bog-standard source and amp. There is a lot to unleash, but still sounds agreeable. Even more forgiving than the 007, which as I wrote is more sensitive towards both amp and source (but it may be even more rewarding in the end). The pacing is slower, but not slow at all, may sound a bit less alien/ethereal to non-estat people (who tend to gravitate towards a 007/CRBN). The separation is slightly vague, but there is more cohesion, easier to hear the music as a whole. Does not have the depth and focus of the 007. As a whole, there is a hint of looseness, softness, delicacy, slightly scaled back dynamics, call it whatever you want, but this results in a presentation that is quite emotional and beautiful, even tear inducing. The bass is just as magnificent today as it was three decades ago (even better with the newest systems), only slightly exaggerated, but there is a lot there, great with rock or metal. It has this versatility of being addictive (better be careful with that volume knob...), kind of stretching the boundaries of what can be achieved with a headphone. But at other times you can just forget about it, and just listen to the music (the 007 can do this aspect even better).

With the X9000 the upper regions have been softened compared to the 009, so it is more refined in that sense. But nothing else is dialled back in terms of sweetening that sound. It is "ultra pacey", foot tapping with things like fast-paced jazz. It is more immediate, there is more intensity, not quite as nuanced and peaceful. There is a just lot going on that demands your attention which can feel less natural, getting serious, no time for weeping here. Depth ability has been regained, so depending on the recording, it can sound even bigger than the Omega. There is even more clarity, amazing macro & micro dynamics, but (in comparison to the Omega) there is a slight sense of "dryness" that is associated with electrostatic timbre in general. Same with the separation, it is incredibly easy to distinguish things, but the sense of cohesion has been reduced. The bass is probably the most textured and localised I've heard. Precision has been markedly improved, however, there is not quite as much heft there. It is not harsh, but a bit brighter, thinner and "harder", a bit more technical sounding in comparison, being more sensitive even to the type of recording it prefers. But when those "click in", there is simply no energy left to pay any attention to its foibles. I think they can tune it to be more universal (natural), that was my first impression that bothered me, but it's probably the same with pretty much every new headphone, maybe it's just the Omega being more lenient as usual.

So, in summary: if you are looking for musicality with the X9000 (at least, in comparison to an older Stax that you might think of as more muddy, and might not even care for too much), you might need to figure out how to add that in. It takes no prisoners regarding the system, but it might work out in the end. It is beautifully built. It uses the latest technology. There is still a lot to respect here, and I hope I can evaluate it on other systems.
Or maybe I am just looking at the wrong side of the coin. And the whole point is that will undoubtedly do absolutely otherworldly insane things out of a DIY T2 (great timing for the HeadAmp Grand Cayman as well) and a suitable source - but its old nemesis is probably just as jaw-dropping in a different, more delicate way.


Just adding my 5c to previous points: imho the Omega in the classifieds is fairly priced, given it status and how easy it is to set up and improve later, and just how good it really is today with such a wide range of musical material (and just that timelessly beautiful look). Anyone having the means to afford one besides an X9000 and valuing musicality: imho it is worth having. It is not an HE90, but it does not need to be. They both excel in different things, just like the R10 does (I assume). The question marks over it's longevity will always be there, but at least it might be less stressful, considering that there are a handful of skilled people who can work on these.

Simply stunning

 

[buzzlulu]

Given more listening time, I’ll figure out how much a truly high end DAC will influence what I am hearing.

Quite a bit.

 

[hifixman]

@mercman, when did you place your order?

Be careful of covid, stealing and robbery

No, AZ, where the air is like a dragon breathing on you.

Personally speaking I will be very careful of meeting up with a stranger especially there are crazy people there amid this pandemics. I will be very careful!

 

[Trance_Gott]

More impressions with Metal on X9000?

 

[eee1111]

More impressions with Metal on X9000?

Tubular dude

 

[Trance_Gott]

Tubular dude

Thanks for the very helpful post.