rgs9200m
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Posts
- 4,199
- Likes
- 862
Thanks for that Zolkis. Very insightful comments on your part also.
The Stax Thread III
Tinkerer
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
- Posts
- 322
- Likes
- 125
Initial design was released late last year. So far DIY only unless someone decides to build a couple and sell. The prototype is supposed to sound amazing, but nobody else has finished one from the first board run yet that I know of.
astrostar59
BannedMember of the Trade: Aries Cerat Espana, Auriculares High-EndAKA Headstage, headphoneweekend
Curious, anyone here tried the LCD3/4 with a decent amp against an 009 rig? I am wondering how close they are in fact. I have read the LCD models are warmer and have superior bass response. I wonder how they are in other regards i.e speed, detail, soundstage etc?
The obvious advantage to me of the Planars is the ability to run them off a conventional amplifier.
The obvious advantage to me of the Planars is the ability to run them off a conventional amplifier.
goobicii
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Posts
- 347
- Likes
- 31
friend want to buy budget Stax and I am not sure what to recommend to him... the srs 2170 which is SR 207 + SRM 252s or srs 3170,SR 307 + 323s amp
looking at innerfidelity the 207 measures amazing for the price,problem is you cant buy the headphone alone,it only comes with that little 252s amp and I have feeling that while 207 out of something like KGSShv might be really good,that petite amp would hold it back
it have only 250v RMS
so tell,me,252,vs 323s,how much better it is? should he buy 2170 or is 3170 just so much better? he listen dubstep and stuff like that,big transient peaks,alot bass,loud... I just dont feel confident in 252s,didnt heard it,it might be case of "dont judge book by its cover" sort of thing
looking at innerfidelity the 207 measures amazing for the price,problem is you cant buy the headphone alone,it only comes with that little 252s amp and I have feeling that while 207 out of something like KGSShv might be really good,that petite amp would hold it back
it have only 250v RMS
so tell,me,252,vs 323s,how much better it is? should he buy 2170 or is 3170 just so much better? he listen dubstep and stuff like that,big transient peaks,alot bass,loud... I just dont feel confident in 252s,didnt heard it,it might be case of "dont judge book by its cover" sort of thing
astrostar59
BannedMember of the Trade: Aries Cerat Espana, Auriculares High-EndAKA Headstage, headphoneweekend
Where is your friend based? I use a great UK Stax dealer called Cheshire Audio who trades back in Stax gear and has a good stock of mint headphones and amps. t would get your friend a decent system for 50% of new. He has a lot of 507s right now for example.
goobicii
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Posts
- 347
- Likes
- 31
Slovakia,really? thats awesome! I was checking prices here in EU and they are like twice whats in japan,atleast the german ones.
Spirulina780
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Posts
- 96
- Likes
- 24
This is the thread for the Stax "entry level": http://www.head-fi.org/t/676272/the-entry-level-stax-thread
They talk a lot about the 2170 system in that thread. If you buy from japan, there is no headphone in that price range that comes close to the same quality, but if you want to play really loud with bass thumping in your spine, you should probably look elsewhere
The 207+252s is safe, especially if you replace the wall wart power supply with a better one.
HemiSam
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2014
- Posts
- 1,080
- Likes
- 206
2170 system punches above its weight based on the input I've received from trusted sources here and on the site that shall remain unnamed...
HS
HS
sensui123
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Posts
- 675
- Likes
- 156
I listen to the SR-009 with the KGSSHV Carbon from Spritzer right now (waiting on the BHSE still)....I've also owned Audeze lcd-2/3/Xc/X and after selling them all...the 4 now also. Currently listening to the LCD-4 with the GS-X mk2......I do think they are TOTL material on the dynamic/orthodynamic side of things as the improvements are obvious from previous iterations....but I would really listen to Jazz and some ballads with the LCD-4 over the SR-009. The aspects you talked about (stage, detail, speed) the SR-009 wins by a good margin in my listening but the LCD-4 retains that sweet mid/punchy bass Audeze is known for. Overall, I'd stick with the SR-009 if you have it properly amp'ed/sourced.....really blown away by the STAX right now coming from a lot of TOTL dynamic stuff.
I've listened to the LCD-3F + GS-X Mk2 and SR-009 + BHSE side by side and I very much agree with this conclusion. The SR-009 technically superior (much more transparent, more detailed, more open/airy, better sound stage and imaging, more neutral and more natural/technically correct to my ears) but the LCD-3F sounds unique in comparison with a lush mid range and somewhat bassier sound.
I don't know about the LCD-4 (yet), but for me the LCD-3F was less preferred than almost any decent Stax headphone (e.g. L700, 007, 009) with a reasonable amplifier, mainly because the narrower stage and the more closed-in sound, despite the buttery smooth and meaty midrange/bass. Also, I have preferred the HE-6 and HE-1000 to the Audeze LCD-3F. It's personal thing I guess.
astrostar59
BannedMember of the Trade: Aries Cerat Espana, Auriculares High-EndAKA Headstage, headphoneweekend
I have spent some time the last few weeks reading away from this forum. What!! Yes there is a world outside head-fi. But seriously, so many non stat forums have a go about Stax gear. It is the same story, too much detail, plastic, unnatural. I disagree of course. IMO they can't handle or are not used to being hard wired to the music. The transient response and low mass of the drivers makes music so fast and detailed.
Why is this? I will try in my own pathetic way here to explain (IMO).
What has most folk grown up with as regards their awareness of music and how it should sound?
1. The radio and amplifiers
Well it was nice when we had those big and warm sounding radio gram monsters in the lounge. Anyone lucky enough to have parents with a Harman Kardon Citation 1? Then things went south somewhat with the '12 transistor' radios as such like. And don't forget the radio stations compressed everything down to 25 DB dynamic range.
2. The speaker
Well, what was available when I was young and that my parents could afford? Not much, mainly 2 box infinite baffle types. If you were lucky the odd Snell thrown in or a BBC monitor. These were the 'go to' speaker if you were serious back then.
And these were more often than not fed by a very average turntable made by Sansui or something and 70's thin (poor) quality vinyl pressings. Things have moved on, but at a certain level speakers (in the main) still sound too cold and detail driven to me and have no heart. Unless you go a bit more crazy on the budget.
There are some great speaker system out there. I have heard the B&W Nautilus and it was impressive and 3D like. There is also the healthy revival of high end horn designs. But I still prefer the sound of my 009s. Maybe I am accustomed to that and it my 'safe' zone. Regardless I get so much enjoyment from it, and of course, it doesn't mean the neighbours are breaking my door in!
3. The recordings
In a studio the mixing desk will typically have mid sized studio monitors like these:
They are usually slightly over detailed so the mixing engineer can hear everything. They then have a low end single box speaker to check how it sounds from a portable radio (though less relevant with iPhones and IEMs). There may be a larger speaker array that handle sub bass, but many studios tend to semi ignore that aspect. Only the club mix recording I used to get when I was a DJ was it obvious they had spent some time with a sub bass mix, as you will have heard on modern club mix dance tracks.
So we are actually listening to a better and more frequency wide faster speaker system than most mixing desks will have. I think this aspect has meant we can hear the micro detail stuff so well, fake record scratch samples in dance music, mixing mistakes and noise, background noises, you name it we can hear it! It may sound different to the artists impression in that studio as well. Does it matter? Maybe. Does it get us closer to the music, the artist, hell yes IMO.
It takes a while to get your brain to 'accept' these aspects, the low level information that is more obvious. It is accurate or 'normal'?. Once you do accept that you are a Stax believer. Those that don't may stay with Planars or conventional speaker headphones. Dare I say it - behind the fog of conventional drivers. Maybe it is a step to far for some.
4. Live Music
We hear from the many that the Stat sound - 'it doesn't sound like live music'. But I have been to classical concerts that sound screechy, too quite, too loud, too brassy, too soft, or just nice and natural. It depends on the acoustics in the venue, where you are stood, how many people in front of you (absorbent mass). Back in the 70's live music often sounded terrible. The mixing all over the shop, speakers not up to it, really really poor. It was often the experience of being there that made it worth it.
More recently I have been to see Kraftwerk which sounded fantastic and Leftfield that made my ears bleed, well, I couldn't hear anything much for 3 days after. The bass was so strong it nearly made me levitate. So what is 'live' sound? There are many.
Stax systems
Back to Stax systems, of course, all this extra information and insight comes at a price, as in many things in life. In this case more is more, not less is more. And it is worth the price IMO. No headphone system or even speaker system is good at everything, but to me Stats get closer in all the areas I care about. Yeah, some say we don't have that killer bass, I disagree. It is killer bass, just different bass. It is textured and detailed bass, not thumping one note head-ache and fatigue inducing bass. If I wanted that I would be driving around in a Kev'ed up motor scaring the neighbours.
All this detail makes it doubly important to get the right DAC and system balance, the right source adjustments if using PC audio. The constant 'it is too bright' or 'how do I tone down the brightness'. It is IMO down to the source and amp to do that, or at least remove that problem in that source so it doesn't get realised in the detailed headphone system, not mask it with a duller sounding driver at the other end.
I will shut up now. Hope you enjoyed my little report.
Why is this? I will try in my own pathetic way here to explain (IMO).
What has most folk grown up with as regards their awareness of music and how it should sound?
1. The radio and amplifiers
Well it was nice when we had those big and warm sounding radio gram monsters in the lounge. Anyone lucky enough to have parents with a Harman Kardon Citation 1? Then things went south somewhat with the '12 transistor' radios as such like. And don't forget the radio stations compressed everything down to 25 DB dynamic range.
2. The speaker
Well, what was available when I was young and that my parents could afford? Not much, mainly 2 box infinite baffle types. If you were lucky the odd Snell thrown in or a BBC monitor. These were the 'go to' speaker if you were serious back then.
And these were more often than not fed by a very average turntable made by Sansui or something and 70's thin (poor) quality vinyl pressings. Things have moved on, but at a certain level speakers (in the main) still sound too cold and detail driven to me and have no heart. Unless you go a bit more crazy on the budget.
There are some great speaker system out there. I have heard the B&W Nautilus and it was impressive and 3D like. There is also the healthy revival of high end horn designs. But I still prefer the sound of my 009s. Maybe I am accustomed to that and it my 'safe' zone. Regardless I get so much enjoyment from it, and of course, it doesn't mean the neighbours are breaking my door in!
3. The recordings
In a studio the mixing desk will typically have mid sized studio monitors like these:
They are usually slightly over detailed so the mixing engineer can hear everything. They then have a low end single box speaker to check how it sounds from a portable radio (though less relevant with iPhones and IEMs). There may be a larger speaker array that handle sub bass, but many studios tend to semi ignore that aspect. Only the club mix recording I used to get when I was a DJ was it obvious they had spent some time with a sub bass mix, as you will have heard on modern club mix dance tracks.
So we are actually listening to a better and more frequency wide faster speaker system than most mixing desks will have. I think this aspect has meant we can hear the micro detail stuff so well, fake record scratch samples in dance music, mixing mistakes and noise, background noises, you name it we can hear it! It may sound different to the artists impression in that studio as well. Does it matter? Maybe. Does it get us closer to the music, the artist, hell yes IMO.
It takes a while to get your brain to 'accept' these aspects, the low level information that is more obvious. It is accurate or 'normal'?. Once you do accept that you are a Stax believer. Those that don't may stay with Planars or conventional speaker headphones. Dare I say it - behind the fog of conventional drivers. Maybe it is a step to far for some.
4. Live Music
We hear from the many that the Stat sound - 'it doesn't sound like live music'. But I have been to classical concerts that sound screechy, too quite, too loud, too brassy, too soft, or just nice and natural. It depends on the acoustics in the venue, where you are stood, how many people in front of you (absorbent mass). Back in the 70's live music often sounded terrible. The mixing all over the shop, speakers not up to it, really really poor. It was often the experience of being there that made it worth it.
More recently I have been to see Kraftwerk which sounded fantastic and Leftfield that made my ears bleed, well, I couldn't hear anything much for 3 days after. The bass was so strong it nearly made me levitate. So what is 'live' sound? There are many.
Stax systems
Back to Stax systems, of course, all this extra information and insight comes at a price, as in many things in life. In this case more is more, not less is more. And it is worth the price IMO. No headphone system or even speaker system is good at everything, but to me Stats get closer in all the areas I care about. Yeah, some say we don't have that killer bass, I disagree. It is killer bass, just different bass. It is textured and detailed bass, not thumping one note head-ache and fatigue inducing bass. If I wanted that I would be driving around in a Kev'ed up motor scaring the neighbours.
All this detail makes it doubly important to get the right DAC and system balance, the right source adjustments if using PC audio. The constant 'it is too bright' or 'how do I tone down the brightness'. It is IMO down to the source and amp to do that, or at least remove that problem in that source so it doesn't get realised in the detailed headphone system, not mask it with a duller sounding driver at the other end.
I will shut up now. Hope you enjoyed my little report.
lilbthebasedgod
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2015
- Posts
- 26
- Likes
- 12
There's really no such thing as fast bass response. Sure, you can say distorted bass response, and stax do that well, but bass is inherently slow.
If you ever look at a CSD for a headphone, they never show the bass because its pointless. A 50hz tone will stay for at least 1/50 of a second. A 20hz for 1/20 of a second, etc. Those are going to be well longer than the decay speed of a driver.
If you send a pulse that's designed to be 20hz but cut off after 1/30 of a second to a signal analyzer, you will see its just a pulse that contains all frequencies, not a 20hz tone.
Stax have relatively undistorted bass compared to dynamic headphones, but people say the HD800 has similar bass and its' way more distorted.
I fully maintain that "fast, accurate bass" is just a meme and is mostly just shelved bass response. Which I'm fine with I guess, because I like stax headphones.
If you ever look at a CSD for a headphone, they never show the bass because its pointless. A 50hz tone will stay for at least 1/50 of a second. A 20hz for 1/20 of a second, etc. Those are going to be well longer than the decay speed of a driver.
If you send a pulse that's designed to be 20hz but cut off after 1/30 of a second to a signal analyzer, you will see its just a pulse that contains all frequencies, not a 20hz tone.
Stax have relatively undistorted bass compared to dynamic headphones, but people say the HD800 has similar bass and its' way more distorted.
I fully maintain that "fast, accurate bass" is just a meme and is mostly just shelved bass response. Which I'm fine with I guess, because I like stax headphones.
I agree bass from the top Stax is lacking but it can get high-end with the proper amping. Adding the Nagra HD DAC to my Stax 007tii helped with the bass and the Mal Valve Head Amp Three MK3 does it by itself.
I never did go to BHSE for the bass with 009, it was not the tool I choose for bass heavy music.
Better solution with other conventional headphones but with the above amps and DACs, the bass from a 009/007 can almost match the top magnetics.
Paul
Users who are viewing this thread
