[Rhamnetin]

This talk makes me glad I snagged a KGSS for a great price, since it looks like I'll be getting an SR-007Mk1.  If the ones I'm eyeballing are sold before I can buy them, I might just have to go for the L700.  I have no experience with the SR-007A but I don't want a "thick" sound (bloated mid bass obscuring the mid range).  How do you SR-007A owners think it fares with classical/orchestral?

 

[astrostar59]

  This talk makes me glad I snagged a KGSS for a great price, since it looks like I'll be getting an SR-007Mk1.  If the ones I'm eyeballing are sold before I can buy them, I might just have to go for the L700.  I have no experience with the SR-007A but I don't want a "thick" sound (bloated mid bass obscuring the mid range).  How do you SR-007A owners think it fares with classical/orchestral?

My 007A which I bought 4 months ago from PJ is superb. It is fast, detailed and has a wide soundstage. Basically it sounds very different to the 007 MK2. I have heard the 007 MK1 and I would say they are close. Personally I would go for the new 007A. The 007 Mk1 is ancient now, and no doubt the person selling is asking too much and it is well used. Also the ear pads on the 007A current issue are better, the cable entry is a stronger design (weak point on the 007 MK1). The 007A current issue is slightly behind the 009 in treble energy but is no slouch, it is definitely not slow or dark (thick). You will not be disappointed, trust me.

 

[aphex27]

 
My 007A which I bought 4 months ago from PJ is superb. It is fast, detailed and has a wide soundstage. Basically it sounds very different to the 007 MK2. I have heard the 007 MK1 and I would say they are close. Personally I would go for the new 007A. The 007 Mk1 is ancient now, and no doubt the person selling is asking too much and it is well used. Also the ear pads on the 007A current issue are better, the cable entry is a stronger design (weak point on the 007 MK1). The 007A current issue is slightly behind the 009 in treble energy but is no slouch, it is definitely not slow or dark (thick). You will not be disappointed, trust me.

Hi, when did this new SR-007 start coming out and how can someone know that they're buying the new one (and not the Mk2)?
Thanks

 

[astrostar59]

 
Hi, when did this new SR-007 start coming out and how can someone know that they're buying the new one (and not the Mk2)?
Thanks

I don't know when it was released. Birgir has noticed though, he used to slag off the newer 007 and stick to the first 007 from way back. Now he admits they are much better.
 
But I can say if you buy a new 007A from a dealer or from PJ it will be like the one i have (and love so much). I used to have a Mk2.5 007 (black) which I thought was ok. It was a bit dark and the mid bass had a hump and some bloom. It sounded boxed. That was on a Stax SRM-717 which is probably the better of the recent crop of Stax amps for that phone. Then I bought the 009s and sold my Mk2.5s. Later I then decided to have a second system and bought the 007As from Pj.
 
Even running from my Stax 717 I knew these were much faster and more alive than the previous version. However, on dance and reggae for example, they ran out of juice pretty quickly and sounded strained/compressed. It was not the 007s, it was the Stax amp. So I bought another KGSShv and WOW, now they were much closer in character to my 009s i.e. more transparent, faster, smooth bass response, wider soundstage, more decay details, better vocals etc than my older Mk2.5s.
 
As long as you buy a new pair of 007As you will be A OK. Stax never admits to any changes and never says what date that change may be. Even the serial numbers don't seem to say much either. Really IMO the current 007A is a bargain in high end Stat land IMO.
 
Hope this helps.

 

[aphex27]

Helps a lot! Thanks for the very informative response!
I'm trying to decide what to get for less than pristine recordings I might listen to..
Good records sound spectacular on my 009s, but flaws on average records drive me nuts, that's the price of perfection I guess
I was thinking about the L-700 but your advice has me thinking about the 007s now..

 

[Fearless1]

I think mine is a newer model, I got in a trade with a colleague for some home theatre equipment I had lying around. I have had them almost a year and not used them much.

I currently use the SRM-007T II with it, I like what I hear, but I think it can do better based on what I read on this thread and around the net. Hence my question about the difference a higher end amp makes. (Btw thanks for the answers)

 

[buffalobill]

  Good records sound spectacular on my 009s, but flaws on average records drive me nuts, that's the price of perfection I guess
 

 
Interesting point, maybe they are too good sometimes

 

[wink]

They just show up the bad recordings for what they are.   Don't blame your gear.

 

[astrostar59]

  Good records sound spectacular on my 009s, but flaws on average records drive me nuts, that's the price of perfection I guess
 

 

I think the incredible transparency of the 009 and indeed a Stax system has it's benefits but also comes at a price. The treble edge and aggression in some recordings can be a disappointment. And it carries into recent recordings which sadly the mastering is pretty awful on many. The current trend to push the midrange up into the 60% and above DB range is ridiculous. It makes the track play louder, but invariably start clipping and of course crushes the dynamic range reducing the 'live event'  illusion. 
 
My own path to get a sound that I can enjoy as much as possible on all recording, is to find a smooth sounding DAC and then tweak the surrounding gear to tame the upper treble energy or any digititous without loosing detail or transparency. It is a tricky thing, but can be done and will reward with an amazing sonic experience and stop the buy / selling decease IMO.
 
The good thing about bad recordings if there is any, is they tend to be in the early digital year i.e. in the 90's and as I said some howler in descent issues. Most of the pre 90's recording are actually pretty good, probably as they were on open real and the engineer actually looked to keep the saturation level in check.

 

[aphex27]

  They just show up the bad recordings for what they are.   Don't blame your gear.

 When did I blame them? I'm grateful for them.
I just don't want to restrict my listening to records with excellent production values.
There is a lot of music out there..

 

[astrostar59]

 

 When did I blame them? I'm grateful for them.
I just don't want to restrict my listening to records with excellent production values.
There is a lot of music out there..

The 007s are more forgiving, but then you don't get the level of the 009s on the better recordings.
 
Maybe don't play the poor recordings as loud. In Audirvana+ there is a high shelf filter than can reduce high frequency response that can help.
I use it sometimes, and it doesn't loose quality like may EQ functions tend to.
 
The other thing is, what is your source? And are you playing music non compressed?

 

[soren_brix]

  ... push the midrange up into the 60% and above DB range ...

care to explain what that means?

 

[soren_brix]

  And are you playing music non compressed?

you mean wearing one of these while listing?

 

[astrostar59]

  care to explain what that means?

Ok, here goes. The dynamic range of a recorded track lets say (as an example for this exercise) ranges from -55 DB (loudest instrument sound not the noise floor) to 0 DB, 0 DB being the loudest passages before clipping. Digital recording clipping is really badly as opposed to analogue saturation (in a tape). And as a general guide most of the information in the music is in the midrange frequencies. Lets assume these are around -20 DB in a 'normal' recording of classical music or even pop. Thus the limit to a perceived 'loudness' to the listener on a radio or hifi will be on average -20 DB at a given volume level on the amplifier. However, if the studio mix the track to bring the midrange up into the upper dynamic range let say -15 DB then the track now sounds a lot louder for the same volume setting on the amplifier, yet the peaks in the music are the same level as before.
 
There is a studio mastering forum on the web with many posts by studio technician. They actually list the worst cases as a kind of 'black list'. I guess it is like being a Chef and using ready made ingredients, the studio is basically trying to cheat the system. What we end up with on a good quality sound system is obvious compression and lack of dynamic contrast, the whole thing sounds like a noise basically, a wall of sound if you like. Pop on the radio works well as does music played in a car or on an iPhone with mid range IEMs. But in a 'normal' stereo system it is not good IMO.
 
My rogue list for mass clipping and compression includes:
Metallica- Death Metallic (the fans even demanded a remastering on this album. Strangely the DVD music extraction sounds better).
 
There are many more. But we are basically fed this auditory outrage and supposed to go along with it. I guess most folk out there don't realise it or care a damb. Lets face it, 95% of the population think MP3s are as good as CDs. Many of my buddies have just got lazy with music, they would rather stream MP3s off the cloud and play through wifi satellite speakers in various places in the house. The 'dedicated' music room is gone it that situation.

 

[soren_brix]

Thanks for the explanation, although not really answering my question:

  ... push the midrange up into the 60% and above DB range ...

What does: "into the 60% and above DB range" means?
 
However, I am not sure your explanation is right.
first of all, where do you get the 55dB range from? the dynamic range of an lp might be around 55-60dB. The digital source has a dynamic range which is tied to the bit depth, and can be further enhanced by noise shaping, over sampling: 16bit ~ 96dB.
The dynamic range of a tape recording is a more complex matter but seems depending on type of tape, size of the tape, speed of tape and how sophisticated the recording equipment being used. As far as I know, 80dB dynamic range is possible without using Dolby, High Com or DBX.

In terms of the Classical orchestra the dynamic range can be as much as ~70dB. Listning to an uncompressed recording will require your gear to be able to produce ~70dB on top of the noise from the environment - not pratical in most situations, thus the recordings are compressed.
According to Bob Katz, the use of compression when mastering took off during the eighties aiming at getting the recording to sound 'loud' enough. As far as I understand this is mostly a problem in regards to popular music, and is not so much a problem in regards to jazz and classical music.
As I understand it, the use of heavy compression and so forth is mainly driven by the use of music in situations where the noise floor is much worse than in a normal home listning situation; in the car, on the go or in the gym.
If its clipped and distorted doesn't seem to be a problem in most of those situations anyway.
 
I guess music being produced like that will sound equally bad on what ever Stax you may use including a 2020.
In fact my own experience is that some old Kempff and Lipatti recordings tends to be a lot less annoying when listen to using good equipment ... I suspect that good equipment just add less to the final sound than not so good equipment.
Listing to a real Steinway, Bösendorfer or Fazioli from time to time also seems to improve the listning situation quite a bit ;o)
 
In rgrds to the "so-called" bad 007, I don't really get all the fuzz. There are quite a lot of people being very satiesfied about their so-called 'bad' 007.
Even some who have tried the Spritzer-mod, and revert to the original ...
I've only seen a very few people (I guess only one actually) who has been able to A/B testing a 'good' 007 with a 'bad' 007 .... and Zolkis even claims to have a 007 trimmed to sound almost like a 009, a blooming bass might stem from wrong adjustment of pads
 
The 007 is a heavy phone to drive, get a proper amp and forget about the so-called 'bad' 007.