[kawhia]

Thanks. I will need to find a dealer and do some auditioning. What holds me back on the Stax train is the amp thing. I don’t want another amp. Is there a small converter that connects to my current amp?

 

[Danmellinger]

Could anyone please point me to a comparison between the x9000 and the Abyss 1266TC? Has anyone experience with both headphones? Thank you.

@Ciggavelli is spot on.

I have both and even run them off of the same energizer (Z10e) and they are pretty much polar opposites in terms of presentation. Abyss are dynamic, aggressive, and forward with a more robust bass response and slight recession in the mids relative to the treble and bass. They also have a vast soundstage

The X9K are tuned relatively "neutral" with an effortless and relaxed presentation while still presenting more texture and detail, having better spatial characteristics, and winning in the overall timbre department. The soundstage width is close but I would give the edge to the TC.

Overall the X9K are more "real" sounding to me, while the 1266 are more fun and amazing to listen to for high-energy genres like metal and hip hop. Whereas the X9K are great all-arounders but would definitely take the edge in acoustic and vocal-centric genres.

 

[kawhia]

Whereas the X9K are great all-arounders but would definitely take the edge in acoustic and vocal-centric genres.

My listening is mostly acoustic music. The 1266 is definitely no slouch, but sometimes I’d like a bit more sweetness and presence in the midrange. The midrange can feel a bit recessed, sounding hall-like. Even though the recording was definitely not recorded in a hall I am exaggerating to make my point. The more I think about it the more I want to audition the x9000

 

[BassicScience]

My listening is mostly acoustic music. The 1266 is definitely no slouch, but sometimes I’d like a bit more sweetness and presence in the midrange. The midrange can feel a bit recessed, sounding hall-like. Even though the recording was definitely not recorded in a hall I am exaggerating to make my point. The more I think about it the more I want to audition the x9000

Not sure if you've already ruled out the Susvara, but it shares many traits (timbral accuracy, midrange presence) with the X9000 and would play well with your current amp. The X9000 will offer slightly better staging and resolution (at the expense of some bass impact/reach), but as you note you'll need a dedicated amp or transformer box. They're both superb headphones, but if I could only keep one, it'd be the Susvara. But do note that my listening diet probably incorporates more electric rock and bass-centric music than yours from the sound of it.

 

[hifixman]

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

1, Lambda Signature doesn’t have good resolution to my ears. I owned it in the early stage of my audiophile journey. I was attracted by its color and printing of the label. But sonically, I have no positive experience with it. Yet you are right about it’s thin sounding which doesn’t necessarily yield resolution at all in the case of Lambda Signature. It sounded to me just weak, unengaging and odd even by my standard way back then.

2, Aperio has better bass, more resolution and better three dimensionalities than Bravura . It is a reference tuning which is more neutral and correct sounding than both Shangri La SR and X9000, yet people may find it more boring BY CONTRAST. Aperio has great control, separation and spatial presentation in a natural way without the feeling of being highly processed with HiFi MSG.

I used to prefer the vocals from Bravura which is more close to face and for genres as folk, or vocal based tracks, it could really shine. Yet now I am against mid centric tuning as my taste of spatial representation has been corrected largely by DCS.

Yes they do share abundant similarities and I dare to say after enabling DAC bypass on Bravura, they could be even closer. I would argue that the gap of tonality and three dimensions between the two systems might due to mostly on the source, while the better amp section in Aperio gives it better authoritative low ends, stage and dynamics. I’m really amazed at how Warwick Acoustics could they make everything so compact in one box while achieving the sonic performance that could be normally done by multiple boxes piled with multiple giant transformers, power supplies, resistors and so forth. Whatever is their knack, they nailed it.

I personally don’t think the built in dac of Aperio is necessarily inferior to May KTE which comes with a separate power supply though, even the size difference of dac section between these two is humongous. It might be wrong to judge by the physical size in that what matters could be the interior design, only recognizable by engineering eyes. Instead I quite admire the Digital to Analogue converting capabilities of Aperio and find it high performing. Yet for sure there could be room for further upgrades with better source.

3. I may answer the question 3 soon.

 

[Ciggavelli]

I just also have to say the build quality and cable on the X9K are so so so much better than the Shangri-la Sr. If you knew nothing about either headphone, I think 100% of people would say the X9K costs more. Now, I guess build quality doesn't really matter after a certain point. As long as it doesn't fall apart, I guess it doesn't really matter. Sound quality is definitely more important. I'd say the X9K plays in the same field as the Shangr-la Sr. I think the Sr is a bit better, but the X9K isn't too far behind

 

[DJJEZ]

I just also have to say the build quality and cable on the X9K are so so so much better than the Shangri-la Sr. If you knew nothing about either headphone, I think 100% of people would say the X9K costs more. Now, I guess build quality doesn't really matter after a certain point. As long as it doesn't fall apart, I guess it doesn't really matter. Sound quality is definitely more important. I'd say the X9K plays in the same field as the Shangr-la Sr. I think the Sr is a bit better, but the X9K isn't too far behind

Would love to hear a shang SR v X9K comparison once you've spent more time with X9K

 

[BassicScience]

I just also have to say the build quality and cable on the X9K are so so so much better than the Shangri-la Sr. If you knew nothing about either headphone, I think 100% of people would say the X9K costs more. Now, I guess build quality doesn't really matter after a certain point. As long as it doesn't fall apart, I guess it doesn't really matter. Sound quality is definitely more important. I'd say the X9K plays in the same field as the Shangr-la Sr. I think the Sr is a bit better, but the X9K isn't too far behind

The fact that the cable is not detachable on the SGL is inexcusable. OTOH, it's lighter and less bulky than the stock cable of the X9K, which is a plus in my book.

Regarding build quality, I'm pretty sure a majority of people would assess the X9K as having the more premium look and feel. I'm just not sure it's actually more robustly constructed (or more comfortable) than the SGL. Hifiman's various quality control issues have been widely documented on Head-Fi, but the rollout of the X9K has been far from problem-free either, FWIW.

 

[number1sixerfan]

@Ciggavelli is spot on.

I have both and even run them off of the same energizer (Z10e) and they are pretty much polar opposites in terms of presentation. Abyss are dynamic, aggressive, and forward with a more robust bass response and slight recession in the mids relative to the treble and bass. They also have a vast soundstage

The X9K are tuned relatively "neutral" with an effortless and relaxed presentation while still presenting more texture and detail, having better spatial characteristics, and winning in the overall timbre department. The soundstage width is close but I would give the edge to the TC.

Overall the X9K are more "real" sounding to me, while the 1266 are more fun and amazing to listen to for high-energy genres like metal and hip hop. Whereas the X9K are great all-arounders but would definitely take the edge in acoustic and vocal-centric genres.

+1 to all of this.

I just also have to say the build quality and cable on the X9K are so so so much better than the Shangri-la Sr. If you knew nothing about either headphone, I think 100% of people would say the X9K costs more. Now, I guess build quality doesn't really matter after a certain point. As long as it doesn't fall apart, I guess it doesn't really matter. Sound quality is definitely more important. I'd say the X9K plays in the same field as the Shangr-la Sr. I think the Sr is a bit better, but the X9K isn't too far behind

Yea without question regarding build quality. The Sr. feels better on my head, but so did the Susvara. But easily, the x9k is far better aesthetically. And really isn't excusable imo given the price.

Generally agree with the last statement, only thing I'd add from my experience, which you can see my progression from my thread.. at first I thought they were pretty much dead even, until after more time when some of the differences for me became more apparent. Will be very interesting in hearing your thoughts as you progress.

Also for anyone else wondering. I don't have the thread handy (edit), but the in depth comparison @BassicScience between the x9000 and SGL Sr. I thought was very insightful and more articulate than what I can even put together, with a lot of contrasting thoughts and pros and cons for each. Definitely worth checking out if you haven't.

 

[WernerW]

1, Lambda Signature doesn’t have good resolution to my ears. I owned it in the early stage of my audiophile journey. I was attracted by its color and printing of the label. But sonically, I have no positive experience with it. Yet you are right about it’s thin sounding which doesn’t necessarily yield resolution at all in the case of Lambda Signature. It sounded to me just weak, unengaging and odd even by my standard way back then.

2, Aperio has better bass, more resolution and better three dimensionalities than Bravura . It is a reference tuning which is more neutral and correct sounding than both Shangri La SR and X9000, yet people may find it more boring BY CONTRAST. Aperio has great control, separation and spatial presentation in a natural way without the feeling of being highly processed with HiFi MSG.

I used to prefer the vocals from Bravura which is more close to face and for genres as folk, or vocal based tracks, it could really shine. Yet now I am against mid centric tuning as my taste of spatial representation has been corrected largely by DCS.

Yes they do share abundant similarities and I dare to say after enabling DAC bypass on Bravura, they could be even closer. I would argue that the gap of tonality and three dimensions between the two systems might due to mostly on the source, while the better amp section in Aperio gives it better authoritative low ends, stage and dynamics. I’m really amazed at how Warwick Acoustics could they make everything so compact in one box while achieving the sonic performance that could be normally done by multiple boxes piled with multiple giant transformers, power supplies, resistors and so forth. Whatever is their knack, they nailed it.

I personally don’t think the built in dac of Aperio is necessarily inferior to May KTE which comes with a separate power supply though, even the size difference of dac section between these two is humongous. It might be wrong to judge by the physical size in that what matters could be the interior design, only recognizable by engineering eyes. Instead I quite admire the Digital to Analogue converting capabilities of Aperio and find it high performing. Yet for sure there could be room for further upgrades with better source.

3. I may answer the question 3 soon.

Hi and thanks a lot for your reply!
This was helpful information for me.

Regarding the old Lambda Signature from 1987, yes, I agree with you.
I also did not want to say that the Lambda Signature can anyhow compete with the resolution of an X9000 or this kind of state-of-the-art headphones.
But compared to other Stax headphones of those old days.
However, the description of SGL vs X9000 here in this thread reminded me very much of the basic character difference between a Signature and an X9000 (but it is difficult to map verbal discriptions to real listening experiences).

Regarding the Aperio vs Bravura, this was helpful for me, thanks for sharing your view.

But I still have some - certainly stupid - questions here:
What do the acronyms "Hifi MSG" and "DCS" mean?
With DCS you certainly did not mean the company dCS?

You write:
"[...] I dare to say after enabling DAC bypass on Bravura, they could be even closer. [...]"
What did you mean with "DAC bypass"?
How is it possible to bypass the DAC inside the Sonoma energizer/DSP/amp that is used for the Bravura headpones?


To 3. (HE-1 vs SGL Sr vs X9000), yes, this would be great to learn about your view an experience here

Thank you very much,
Cheers, Werner

 

[VandyMan]

How is it possible to bypass the DAC inside the Sonoma energizer/DSP/amp that is used for the Bravura headpones?

It is not possible. The energizer includes an ADC for the analog inputs. Their headphones require the built-in EQ by design. The EQ is applied in the digital domain.

Edit: Their most expensive model, the APERIO, offers analog EQ. So the above only applies to the M1.

 

[DJJEZ]

It is not possible. The energizer includes an ADC for the analog inputs. Their headphones require the built-in EQ by design. The EQ is applied in the digital domain.

Edit: Their most expensive model, the APERIO, offers analog EQ. So the above only applies to the M1.

This is correct. I had bravura on home demo not long ago and you cant bypass the internal DAC

 

[WernerW]

It is not possible. The energizer includes an ADC for the analog inputs. Their headphones require the built-in EQ by design. The EQ is applied in the digital domain.

Edit: Their most expensive model, the APERIO, offers analog EQ. So the above only applies to the M1.

Yes, this was also my state of knowledge, here, before.
This was the reason why I was wondering what @hifixman meant by:
"Yes they do share abundant similarities and I dare to say after enabling DAC bypass on Bravura, they could be even closer. "?
Maybe there was a certain hack or DIY trick by which a bypass of the internal DAC section of the DSP was possible?
Or it was meant just as an idea that the sound differences might mainly origin from the DACs of Aperio versus Sonoma/Bravura? Which is difficult to estimate imho. This was not clear to me.

Further question:
@VandyMan
You write: "Edit: Their most expensive model, the APERIO, offers analog EQ. So the above only applies to the M1."

How shall this be possible?
An analog EQ section in a headphone system that completely relies on a DSP that controls the transducer with the very special diaphragm cassette?
To my knowledge not only the Sonoma/Bravura system but also the Aperio system is based on full DSP control to match the audio properties of the very special "cassette" (with the diaphragm and the two stators for symmetrical push-pull) to the optimal sound quality and also the near-Harman tonality (EQ section).

But that EQ of the Aperio can be decoupled from the overall digital DSP processing and be realized as an analog EQ section?
Sounds to be a bit of a strange technical approach?
And anyway, analog circuits for EQ are not a good way to realize EQ with a good SQ.
But maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Tugbars]

Both Aperio and Bravura uses DSP to reduce distortion of their diaphragms. The technique is called as active linearization algorithm.(or NLC, nonlinear control) It works for both hysteretic and static non linearities.

Basically, inherently Warwick electrostatic drivers have relatively very high distortion and they need NLC to reach acceptable levels. Warwick uses such transducers because of their certain benefits and deal with their shortcomings through utilizing clever algorithms.

In short, do not attempt to bypass Warwick's DSP. You definitely need it.

 

[VandyMan]

Further question:
@VandyMan
You write: "Edit: Their most expensive model, the APERIO, offers analog EQ. So the above only applies to the M1."

How shall this be possible?
An analog EQ section in a headphone system that completely relies on a DSP that controls the transducer with the very special diaphragm cassette?
To my knowledge not only the Sonoma/Bravura system but also the Aperio system is based on full DSP control to match the audio properties of the very special "cassette" (with the diaphragm and the two stators for symmetrical push-pull) to the optimal sound quality and also the near-Harman tonality (EQ section).

But that EQ of the Aperio can be decoupled from the overall digital DSP processing and be realized as an analog EQ section?
Sounds to be a bit of a strange technical approach?
And anyway, analog circuits for EQ are not a good way to realize EQ with a good SQ.
But maybe I'm wrong?

That is an interesting question to which I don't know the answer. I assumed both models would convert their analog inputs into digital for DSP. However, I decided to double check about the Aperio after posting and saw that they claim that analog signals are not converted and use analog EQ (I assume instead of DSP). So I'm just going by what their website says:

"Within the APERIO all audio signals are kept in their native domain and format: analogue always remains analogue"