You make a good point regarding taste. In my case my "taste" is almost entirely classical, starting with early renaissance through the 20th century. I have found that no one headphone is perfect for all the different styles, instrument combinations and colors that present in classical music. Fortunately, I have only ever sold one headphone (Abyss 1266 phi) so I can match the characteristics of the headphones in my collection to the characteristics of the music I am listening to. This makes the hobby much more fun for me than just having one or two all purpose headphones. It was this need for variety that led me to e-stats and to the x9000. For some pieces the x9000 is ideal, for others not so much. But, for me, the fun is in mixing and matching the music to the headphones.
Hi, I very much agree with your approach to listening to headphones. I love different top headphones for their strengths and special "personality" and also despite their weaknesses. I think where there is light, there must also be accepted shadow. Some sound characteristics are mutually exclusive and cannot be part of one overarching headphone signature. The perfect all-rounder does not exist imho, otherwise it loses its "electrifying" magical qualities.
It's like human faces, where every face is so individual and different and the secret of beauty lies partly in its individuality with strengths and weaknesses. You may be familiar with this computer-generated human face, optimised for beauty, created by an artificial intelligence algorithm by superimposing thousands of very beautiful faces. The result is a completely symmetrical "optimal" face. But when you look at it: Oh, what a boring face!
I am a big fan of classical music, in principle also of all "classical" genres, from chamber music to orchestral music, from vocal music to instrumental music, from the Renaissance to Alban Berg and Olivier Messiaen, and my favourite composer is Gustav Mahler.
And this music is played so well by excellent electrostats. That's why I've loved Stax since 1989 (starting with an SR-Gamma Pro/SRD-X Pro combo) and also Warwick Bravura/Sonoma. A 1987 Lambda Signature is so different from a SR-007, which in turn is so different from a SR-009, which in turn is so different from an X9000. And a Bravura is again a completely different animal in the sound signature and timbre of an electrostat. But all these electrostats have one thing in common, extreme precision, the absence of IMD which can blur the highs and upper mids in electrodynamic transducers (don't get me wrong, there are also very good electrodynamic transducers on the market, at least in the last 10 years). This e-stat sparkle and speed/accuracy are sometimes breathtaking, I need that to enjoy Gustav Mahler with huge complex orchestral passages as well as his intimate vocal songs.
And X9000, but also 009, 007, Bravura are so well suited for this kind of music.
But I really enjoy switching between the different characters of the headphones. I'm so glad that I don't have just one "100%" headphone, but several "90%" headphones with different characters. This way I avoid the inconsistent “optimal face” (face analogue mentioned above)
.
I have found that if I listen monogamously
for too long to one headphone, only, I tend to adapt its signature and think it is "normal". Like at a live concert, where I also don't always think "oh wow, this is like heaven, I'm sitting here in perfect sonic conditions and reflecting on this every minute". No, at a live concert I just enjoy the musical event, the music itself and hopefully the excellent interpretation of the score by the conductor and orchestra. But I forget a bit about the sound conditions.
And with a perfect pair of headphones like the X9000, this develops in the same way after prolonged monogamous use. Kind of habituation.
So, when I switch to other excellent headphones, such as an SR-007Mk1, to an SR-009, to a Bravura, all of which have a kind of "opposite" sound character, I am reminded of the strengths and great qualities of these other legendary headphones. At the same time, I begin to admire again the strengths of the X9000, which has characteristics of another dimension, a new class of headphones (in my humble opinion).
So, switching between different excellent headphones is a lot of fun and always reminds me of the particular strengths of all these beauties.
I have a few questions about some of these beauties:
First, about the SGL Sr.
I think you and other owners of the X9000 and the SGL Sr claim that both are in a similar top league, but have different strengths. The X9000 is airier, more spacious, more separating, more forgiving, whereas the SGL Sr is more “aggressive” and forward/direct at high resolution (“aggressive” meant in an absolutely positive sense!).
After all the descriptions here I think I remember the original 1987 Stax Lambda Signature Pro, which I also have in my Stax collection and also love.
This Stax Lambda Signature has the thinnest diaphragm of all the Staxes (but that doesn't mean anything sonically imho) and it has a very aggressive, forward attack with ultra-high resolution. It lacks bass, but the treble is very well resolved. From my point of view, this has always been the “epitome of Stax”.
Then came the SR-007 and that was "no Stax" from my old idea of “Stax”. Then we had the SR-009, and yes, that was much more "Stax" again. And then came the X9000 and what was that? No, that was not "Stax" in terms of the 1987 flagship, the Lambda Signature. But anyway, I fell in love with "the New Stax" aka X9000. It is a heavenly presentation for classical music and also for Gustav Mahler. I love my X9000 dearly, more than any other Stax in my collection and memory.
… but it is not a "Stax"
Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to listen to a Hifiman SGL Sr yet, as they are extremely expensive headphones.
But from the comparative descriptions between X9000 and SGL Sr here on the forum, I get the impression that it could be in the direction of the old 1987 Stax flagship, the Lambda Signature, but now with much better bass presentation and of course much more refined in sound quality (so, the SGL Sr in a much higher league than the aged Lambda Signature, of course!).
But if this is the case, here's my theory:
The airiness, spaciousness and forgiving character of the X9000 and the high-resolution, forward, dynamic and sharp attack of the Lambda Signature and the SGL Sr ("forward" and "sharp" are meant absolutely positively here, because it's ultra-clean sharpness, like a musical razor blade) are two opposite sides of the same coin, based on certain technical capabilities and the absence of IMD (non-linear distortion due to mixing of spectral components resulting in a loss of spectral and spatial resolution).
So, either you trim these inherent high-tech nonlinearity-free characteristics (“of the same coin”) to the airy and relaxed signature of an X9000, or you trim them to a more dynamic forward-attack signature as with the SGL Sr.
But both are of the same basic quality, just directed into different characters, different individuals.
That's why I also want to say that the spectral and spatial resolution is just as high even with the airy and compliant (forgiving) signature as it is with the more dynamic, high-resolution attack style.
It's a bit like digital photos. For example, if you sharpen a photo with an edge filter tool in Photoshop by increasing the contrast at the edges/lines of the image, the photo appears to the viewer with higher resolution. However, this is a subjective effect (optical illusion) and when you zoom in at pixel level you can see that there is no more extra-information, no extended real resolution.
So, I think the old Lambda Signature with its ultra-thin diaphragm sounds like it has higher resolution, but all the information in the music recording and even much more can be found in the X9000, although it seems much smoother through its space, more relaxed and forgiving.
So, maybe SGL Sr and X9000 have the same resolving power (speed, spectral resolution, instrument separation) but they have a very different presentation of their technical capabilities at a high level?
What's your opinion?
Then another question about the Warwick headphone systems:
I admire the Bravura. What do you think about the Aperio in comparison?
Unfortunately, the Aperio is not really affordable, last year it already cost 25,000 USD, but the price has been increased to an insane price tag of 34,000 USD. I don't know why they applied an extreme inflation rate of 36% to an already very expensive system.
But Bravura might still be in a range that one can afford (depends, of course).
Some people who have listened to both systems (unfortunately, I only know the Sonoma M1 and the Bravura, which I adore and love) have told me that the Aperio and Bravura have a fairly similar sound signature and are almost equivalent in sound quality. Is that right?
The Sonoma M1 still had some problems with distortion that occurred from time to time at quite high sound pressure levels in the bass range.
But these distortions no longer occurred with the Bravura so far, I tested this. So, at the sound pressure levels I tested (and for the test this was quite loud and with bass thumps) I heard no distortion. Of course, the system is not made for extreme volumes, but that's not my listening habit anyway (I don't want to damage my hearing either).
Then a question about the Sennheiser HE-1:
How do you rate the HE-1 compared to an SGL Sr and to the X9000 (with a good and powerful amplifier, e.g. a Carbon)?
Thanks a lot and best regards,
Werner
