The Stax Thread III
Apr 23, 2016 at 3:19 PM Post #8,641 of 25,618
I generally think stax are slightly below the best bass.
 
If you look at the 009
http://cdn.head-fi.org/8/8d/8d765f27_STAX_SR-009SNSZ92251_Frequency_Response_HRTF.png

The sub bass is a little bit too low, the 6k-10k is a bit concerning, and the 1-2k is a bit low.  Generally showing that mids would be a bit emphasized.  

But its really not far below.  As you see with the black line, people just prefer raised bass instead of neutral bass.  

If you need an amp to color the signal, its probably distorting the signal and I just always feel that would be very dirty to do to a headphone that's known for being super clean.  I never have tried doing that.
 
Apr 23, 2016 at 3:19 PM Post #8,642 of 25,618
  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.

In a literal sense, sure it's silly to say a transducer's bass response is slow or fast. But by the same token, there is no literal/technical basis for calling a transducer cold vs. warm. Yet these are all perfectly reasonable ways for an enthusiast -- on a largely non-technical hi-end forum here -- to describe what they're hearing relative to other headphones, without spilling dozens/hundreds of extra words. There are other sites where we can peruse nothing but graphs & numbers.
 
I too would call Stax 009 bass "fast and impactful". There are plenty of dynamic transducers that give you more overall heft down low, but always at some cost of distortion artifacts. What's particularly nice about the Stax is that (with proper amping) it achieves particularly satisfying and convincingly realistic levels of bass -- with virtually no distortion. It's really the best of both worlds, and only those who fall into bass-head territory will need to keep looking. 
 
Apr 23, 2016 at 3:21 PM Post #8,643 of 25,618
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.


I generally agree with your take on the sound scene. However in recent times I have come to realize that there is another problem here and that is the mechanical vibration problems of most equipment, especially headphones. The drivers do not just blast energy into the air, they blast, according to Newtonian principles, equal and opposite energy into the earcups. If you dampen this energy, as I have been proposing for the last year or so using sorbothane, and you get a much improved sound with less edginess, better dynamics and localization.

This is not just an issue for crazy tweakers. We already know that Grado's new line of e-series phones are built with vibrational damping plastic. Sennheiser has been in this game at least since it developed the HD800, where it has acknowledged using damping materials in the headband. This fact was largely overlooked by even its fans, not helped by the sometimes obscure language of the Senn ads referring to space-age materials. And why in the headband? Because dear friends energy flows out from the earcups to the bands and can be damped there. I first noticed this with the Stax Sr007 and attributed it to the fact that unlike most phones, the band is tightly screwed to the earcups. However more recently we sorbers have found that even phones like the Lambdas can benefit from damping in their headbands.

Sennheiser has been making a big splash with their new electrostatic superphone. I would assume that they used the knowledge they gained from the HD800 to incorporate damping in these phones. If they didn't then they can be outperformed by phones like the 009 and 007 if effective damping is applied.
 
Apr 23, 2016 at 3:31 PM Post #8,644 of 25,618
  In a literal sense, sure it's silly to say a transducer's bass response is slow or fast. But by the same token, there is no literal/technical basis for calling a transducer cold vs. warm. Yet these are all perfectly reasonable ways for an enthusiast -- on a largely non-technical hi-end forum here -- to describe what they're hearing relative to other headphones, without spilling dozens/hundreds of extra words. There are other sites where we can peruse nothing but graphs & numbers.
 
I too would call Stax 009 bass "fast and impactful". There are plenty of dynamic transducers that give you more overall heft down low, but always at some cost of distortion artifacts. What's particularly nice about the Stax is that (with proper amping) it achieves particularly satisfying and convincingly realistic levels of bass -- with virtually no distortion. It's really the best of both worlds, and only those who fall into bass-head territory will need to keep looking. 

I understand.  I agree that the bass is fine on stax transducers.  I just don't think its any faster or slower in the bass.  Its just farily well positioned.  If the bass is distorted while high notes are going on at the same time, I assume the high notes will be more distorted than if they were played without bass.  Totally non scientific because I haven't tested this.
 
I think the lack of distortion makes stax bass good in that sense.
 
Apr 23, 2016 at 4:43 PM Post #8,645 of 25,618
  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.


Not sure. By fast bass response I mean instant retrieval of what is going on in the music, no speaker lag or muddy catch up. For example on one of my Stanley Clarke albums, where he slaps the bass and the notes change really quickly even though they are low frequency and a slow sound wave, they change quickly and contain grain and texture as he hits the strings. That is what I am trying to explain.
 
Apr 23, 2016 at 5:35 PM Post #8,648 of 25,618
  this upcoming T2 successor look cool. should b e named T3 (-:.

 
confused.gif
confused.gif
confused.gif


Ali
 
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:54 AM Post #8,653 of 25,618
 
It varies with model. The 70xxx ones I've heard don't have it. Mine (71xxx) has a little bit of it, but I happen to like it actually. Never gets bright to my ears but does add a little bit och sparkle and "fun" compared to the earlier 70xxx model. 

I find the SR-009 much more bothersome, having what I hear as a raised upper midrange/low treble. It makes the sound more immediately "detailed" but really it just sounds unnatural to me. 


You need a better amp IMO to realise the potential. The 007 is more forgiving but is veiled. Get a better amp and we are talking a major leap with the 009.
 
Apr 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM Post #8,654 of 25,618
the hd800 is also demands good amp to shine, so i imagine for stax it must, personally if i wont have the budget to buy some
KGSSHV model, some BHSE, or other high end amp thap like T2 or cavali i wouldnt bother to buy these 009.
 
 
 

 
Apr 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM Post #8,655 of 25,618
 
this from ces 2016 stax both
http://ces.zol.com.cn/5622104.html
 
the new amp
http://www.head-fi.org/t/677809/the-stax-thread-iii/7665#post_12234772

I'm speaking about a T2 successor, not this well-known iteration of SRM-2xx range...still a prototype since 2014, BTW : http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/ces-2014-stax-move#EAseVrsMvjckgF4i.97

Ali
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top