[bigfatpaulie]

<Yawn>

 

[Jones Bob]

Back to Stax please.

 

[edstrelow]

  Interesting to see a DAC claiming over 170 dB dynamic range.   ( http://www.msbtech.com/products/dacSelect.php )
 
A typical symphony hall has a background noise level between 35 and 50 dB.  5 meters in front of a typical symphony orchestra, max SPL is almost never above 100 dB.  And, of course, further back, say at row 25, it would be lower.
 
So if a symphony has a dynamic range of 60 to 50 dB, how exactly does a 170 dB dynamic range add to the reproduction of music?
 
It's remarkable to create such a DAC, but I'm not convinced that this approach will lead to the best sound.
 
 
.It might prevent clipping of dynamic peaks of the orchestra or even individual instruments.  I once sat in a symphony concert with a high quality Bruell and Kjaer sound level meter and was struck by how uneven the momentary sound levels were, especially  compared to listening to recorded music through loudspeakers.  Even individual instruments could cause brief massive  swings in volume level.  If you set the dynamic range too low you might lose these peaks, even though the average sound levels are within lower limits.   I see nothing wrong with some over-engineering as long as it doesn't cost too much.
 
What exactly would you recommend, a dynamic range of 50-60 dB?

 

[Music Alchemist]

So does anyone feel that STAX have accurate weight and body to the instruments while planar magnetics have too much?

 

[comzee]

  So does anyone feel that STAX have accurate weight and body to the instruments while planar magnetics have too much?

Depends on the source I'd figure 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Depends on the source I'd figure 

 
Let's assume all conditions are ideal. Do you feel that STAX have more accurate "weight" than planar magnetics?
 
Here's what my best friend had to say on the issue:
 

It probably stems from the fact that planar magnetics use a thicker and heavier membrane in their drivers than the lighter membranes in electrostats. It's reasonably well accepted that with proper engineering and all else being equal, the thinner the membrane, the more accurate the sound. So how does one defend their precious planar magnetic headphones? By suggesting that their headphones provide a "weightier" sound. That's like waving your hand through water compared to air, or watching Usain Bolt sprint against you or myself. Yes, we could do a good job, but in comparison, we'd be much slower and technically non-proficient. Personal experience has demonstrated to me time and time again that electrostats can produce rich and most liquid sound when required and is far from airy whereas planar magnetics can never reach the heights of clarity and transparency that an electrostatic headphone can offer... but that's just one man's opinion. 

 

[comzee]

 
Here's what my best friend had to say on the issue:
 

The source part was actually jesting about all the DAC talk in this thread 

 
As for that comparison, I'd have no idea. I've never heard a planar magnetic driver.
 
Although, I hate the comparison. The only reason to use a simile in the first place is that it makes sense. His does not.
I'm not saying it's right/wrong, just doesn't make sense.
 
It's like saying using thinner strings on a guitar are better, because they can produce a more accurite sound.................. I can't type enough dots, it's just how ridiculous that simile was.............

 

[Keithpgdrb]

  So does anyone feel that STAX have accurate weight and body to the instruments while planar magnetics have too much?

Depends I suppose.  does anyone really KNOW what the album they are listening is "supposed" to sound like?  You would have to be the engineer to know that.  So we pretty much just make sure the areas that we feel are important are dialed in.  we can compare cans to each other, but we never really know which one is right.
 
having said that, I have always preferred the tonality of electrostats in giving me a true representation of what i feel instruments should sound like.  I enjoy that planar fat sound though.

 

[Music Alchemist]

The source part was actually jesting about all the DAC talk in this thread 

 
As for that comparison, I'd have no idea. I've never heard a planar magnetic driver.
 
Although, I hate the comparison. The only reason to use a simile in the first place is that it makes sense. His does not.
I'm not saying it's right/wrong, just doesn't make sense.
 
It's like saying using thinner strings on a guitar are better, because they can produce a more accurite sound.................. I can't type enough dots, it's just how ridiculous that simile was.............

 
I see what you mean. I'm a guitarist (and vocalist, pianist, trombonist...) myself. Maybe I should ask him for more documentation concerning this "thinner is more accurate" issue.
 

  Depends I suppose.  does anyone really KNOW what the album they are listening is "supposed" to sound like?  You would have to be the engineer to know that.  So we pretty much just make sure the areas that we feel are important are dialed in.  we can compare cans to each other, but we never really know which one is right.

 
Well, this relates more to listening to a lot of music and gaining insights from the general sound, without having to know exactly how a given recording is supposed to sound like. All I know is that electrostats sound much more transparent to me. My philosophy is that if it sounds more realistic to me, then it's more accurate, assuming the recording is of sufficient quality. However, the SR-207 for example was lacking a bit of weight to the instruments, but only slightly.

 

[Keithpgdrb]

   
I see what you mean. I'm a guitarist (and vocalist, pianist, trombonist...) myself. Maybe I should ask him for more documentation concerning this "thinner is more accurate" issue.
 
 
Well, this relates more to listening to a lot of music and gaining insights from the general sound, without having to know exactly how a given recording is supposed to sound like. All I know is that electrostats sound much more transparent to me. My philosophy is that if it sounds more realistic to me, then it's more accurate, assuming the recording is of sufficient quality. However, the SR-207 for example was lacking a bit of weight to the instruments, but only slightly.

you may have said this already, but what amp did you use the 207 with?  I think the stock packaged amp is lacking.  I use the srm1mk2 with my lambdas.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  you may have said this already, but what amp did you use the 207 with?  I think the stock packaged amp is lacking.  I use the srm1mk2 with my lambdas.

 
Yeah, I wasn't able to use it with a higher-end amp. Only an SRM-212. Still sounded phenomenal!
 
Although the sound quality of the SR-30 was nowhere near as good as the SR-207, I thought the SR-30 rocked harder.

 

[astrostar59]

   
Please link me to documentation supporting this claim of yours that the preamp in a DAC is so important.
 
There are two power supplies, all with supposedly better specs than the power supplies in their other DACs, and MSB DACs are regarded as among the best, so...

I see, so you don't think getting the signal into analogue then amplifying it and sending it to the next device is important. Maybe we just put a great digital board into a 99US preamplifier then, and save all the money.
 
Dude, the signals at ground level i.e. at the start of the conversion is absolutely important. The signal are tiny, and then have to get amplified to make it out to line out. Some DACs don't even bother with a gain stage, or an pre-amplifier as such, rather a buffer stage or pop amp. We all know what they sound like....
 
Think of every device creating music as having a gain stage, then you will understand. 

 

[ahnafakeef]

What kind of differences can be expected on an SR-009 when used via XLR balanced vs single-ended RCA? Thank you.
-----------------------------------------
Also, I found this on hifiplus.com. I'm new to audio gears, but I've always been told to focus on the headphones over everything else. So, how much of the following excerpt about the SR-009 is true?

One point to be aware of, though, is that the Stax has very little sound of its own, so that it behaves much like a sonic chameleon, reflecting the various tonal colours and characteristics of the components used to drive it.

 

[milosz]

It might prevent clipping of dynamic peaks of the orchestra or even individual instruments.  I once sat in a symphony concert with a high quality Bruell and Kjaer sound level meter and was struck by how uneven the momentary sound levels were, especially  compared to listening to recorded music through loudspeakers.  Even individual instruments could cause brief massive  swings in volume level.  If you set the dynamic range too low you might lose these peaks, even though the average sound levels are within lower limits.   I see nothing wrong with some over-engineering as long as it doesn't cost too much.
 
What exactly would you recommend, a dynamic range of 50-60 dB?

 
No, but pointing to a 170 dB dynamic range and claiming it makes the DAC audibly superior to typical ~120 dB DACs is a marketing lie. 
 
You said that having a 170 dB dynamic range prevents clipping on orchestral peaks, so you're saying that orchestral peaks exist that are beyond the 110~120 dB dynamic range of a typical good DAC. Can you please tell me which orchestra is capable of such SPL's? If you need 170 dB of dynamic range to reproduce the peaks, I'd like to point out that exposure of even a few milliseconds to a 150 dB SPL will result in total deafness to any listener so exposed.
 
In addition, in order to use the full 170 dB dynamic range of such converters, you would need to be playing recordings that are at least 30 bits wide throughout their entire recording chain-history.  There is no microphone / preamp combination made that has a dynamic range wider than about 120 dB. So, no recordings exist of acoustic sounds with dynamic range beyond 120 dB, no matter the bit width.  Electronic music - generated by digital means directly to a bit stream- certainly could have a 170 dB dynamic range. (In fact it could have any bit width)
 
Given that even the best home systems struggle to achieve outputs much higher than about 100~110 dB across the entire audio band, a recording with 170 dB of dynamic range would have to be set for it's max level to be at the max level that the playback system is capable of, let's say 120 dB (probably achievable by a good headphone setup) so the 0 dB level of the playback system would be 50 dB above the 0 dB level of the 170 dB DAC, meaning 50 dB of dynamic range that isn't possibly audible.
 
We need also to consider background noise levels. In a quiet home, background noise is about 40 dB, maybe as low as 30 dB. (http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm) so, with a playback system capable of 120 dB maximum, we actually have 80~90 of AUDIBLE DYNAMIC RANGE. 
 
ALL OF THIS points to the fact that the ~120 dB dynamic range of modern DACs is perfectly adequate, and 170 dB dynamic range provides no audible benefit.
 
It COULD be argued that a DAC which shows a 170 dB dynamic range is so well engineered that all other kinds of distortion must be essentially also eliminated.  However, I don't think this follows at all.  170 dB S/N is the figure quoted and ONLY represents dynamic range capability, there's no objective reason to think that other kinds of distortion are of a similarly low order.
 
I will bet you, however, that if someone believes their DAC has a 170 dB dynamic range that it will sound better to them, thanks to placebo effect.  Of course the placebo effect vanishes in blind listening comparisons, but most audiophiles willing pay large sums to be convinced their gizmo sounds better and so discount any blind listening comparisons.
 
Since this is a STAX thread, I will now point out that a Stax transducer has about a 100 dB dynamic range over which it is linear. 

 

[VGoghs earfrmsc]

Let's assume all conditions are ideal. Do you feel that STAX have more accurate "weight" than planar magnetics?
 
Here's what my best friend had to say on the issue:
 

It probably stems from the fact that planar magnetics use a thicker and heavier membrane in their drivers than the lighter membranes in electrostats. It's reasonably well accepted that with proper engineering and all else being equal, the thinner the membrane, the more accurate the sound. So how does one defend their precious planar magnetic headphones? By suggesting that their headphones provide a "weightier" sound. That's like waving your hand through water compared to air, or watching Usain Bolt sprint against you or myself. Yes, we could do a good job, but in comparison, we'd be much slower and technically non-proficient. Personal experience has demonstrated to me time and time again that electrostats can produce rich and most liquid sound when required and is far from airy whereas planar magnetics can never reach the heights of clarity and transparency that an electrostatic headphone can offer... but that's just one man's opinion. 

Hifiman HE1000 has a membrane of 1 nanometre, isn't stax's larger than that.