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.