The Stax Thread III

[nepherte]

I suppose I hear differently, but that’s alright. It’s not a matter of right or wrong. Just shows that you need to hear it for yourself.

 

[martin778]

Well, I seem to have a serious ergonomic problem with the 007...can't find any position in which they are comfortable. Lack of pivot on the earcups seems to be the dealbreaker here.
Tried turning the pads around and having the thickest part on the back seems to work best but they keep pulling themselves upwards on my head and the leather pad is already touching the metal bars on top....they are too small?!

 

[lsantista]

same here, there is nothing to compare really
actually I think L500, L700, 009S (heard only briefly, twice) all sound much more similar to the X9000. But to me the X9000 corrects all the shortcomings of the lambdas and improves some of the things I like about their character so much already.
my 007A seria 13xx sounds a lot different, not much to my liking to be honest, it sounds a bit odd and wrong. I dont think it is something with my unit or serial batch, since to me it is still better than a LCD2 for instance, and admitedly offers something different from other Stax. It is just that its timber doesn't go well with most of what I listen to, specially classical, and I find its bass punchy in a good way but nothing to write home about, contrary to so many reports everywhere that it has one of the best ever bass among e-stats.

The mjolnir carbon did improve things in a meaningfull way and I agree to comments above that it pairs better with solid state whereas the others mentioned pair fine, maybe better with tubes.
And Im not saying the X9000 is perfect, but to me is by far the best Ive listened to, including most speaker setups I can remember (it SOUNDS more speaker like, but it still feels like a headphone though)

 

[ri_toast]

Well, I seem to have a serious ergonomic problem with the 007...can't find any position in which they are comfortable. Lack of pivot on the earcups seems to be the dealbreaker here.
Tried turning the pads around and having the thickest part on the back seems to work best but they keep pulling themselves upwards on my head and the leather pad is already touching the metal bars on top....they are too small?!

I saw a you tube video where the modder put new holes in the elastic to move the headphones away from the band; seemed simple. Even the new bands aren't cheap.
It's almost like they designed a headphone that would sound great, fit wrong.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Granted, I don’t own the x9000 yet, but I heard it for a couple hours in a quiet listening environment. My initial impression is that it’s not a blanket victory for x9000. There are areas where I think 007 is better. My opinion might change once I have more time with it… but for now I stick with it.

Yea I would say a short listen just isn't enough, and that's really the problem with short auditions impressions. You really need about a week, but even a few nights in home is a huge step up from a single audition. But I know that's not always possible.

But yea, the x9000 is also a pretty clear landslide against the 007 imo. Although the bass of the 007 will always be impressive.

I'm also a pretty huge 009 fanatic, and despite it being less forward, warmer and a bit more relaxed--things that all aren't my preferences; it has a clear edge against it as well.

 

[nepherte]

But yea, the x9000 is also a pretty clear landslide against the 007 imo. Although the bass of the 007 will always be impressive.

It wasn't necessarily the bass that was lacking. I found the 007 had better tonality. I would say that x9000 beats 007 in other departments, it's just that tonality is a rather big deal for me + it's not like the 007 is a slouch either in the other departments.

I'm also a pretty huge 009 fanatic

I guess by now it's also obvious I prefer 007 over 009

 

[number1sixerfan]

It wasn't necessarily the bass that was lacking. I found the 007 had better tonality. I would say that x9000 beats 007 in other departments, it's just that tonality is a rather big deal for me + it's not like the 007 is a slouch either in the other departments.

I guess by now it's also obvious I prefer 007 over 009

That's certainly fair. Tonality is more of a personal, preferential thing--and I think a bit easier to be picked up quickly. Is it that you prefer the more liquid thickness of the 007? What is it with the tone/timbre for you? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts because it's probably closer in this regard to the 007 than it is the 009. (although honestly it feels as if it pulls from elements from both)

 

[martin778]

What is the general warranty period on Stax HP's?
I've read that the X9000 again has the Stax fart issue, is this true?

 

[alegar]

¿Cuál es el período de garantía general de Stax HP?
He leído que el X9000 nuevamente tiene el problema del pedo Stax, ¿es esto cierto?

Llevo tres dias con el X9K y te puedo decir que tiene muy poco pedo, aun apretandolos a conciencia, el 009S tiene mucho mas pedo, solo tienes que abrir la boca cuando lo tienes puesto y aparece . Por cierto, el X9K me tiene alucinado.

 

[lostrockets]

anyone have experience using 6sn7 tubes with adapters in their 6FQ7/6CG7 sockets ? if so, which amp and how'd it affect the sound?

 

[padam]

It wasn't necessarily the bass that was lacking. I found the 007 had better tonality. I would say that x9000 beats 007 in other departments, it's just that tonality is a rather big deal for me + it's not like the 007 is a slouch either in the other departments.

I guess by now it's also obvious I prefer 007 over 009

I agree.

But yea, the x9000 is also a pretty clear landslide against the 007 imo. Although the bass of the 007 will always be impressive.

I don't agree and it is the bass that I actually find as the main weakness in the 007 Mk1. There is plenty of it, it's just not nearly as high quality as the midrange or treble and I am not sure how much power it really needs, if it is possible to fix it "completely". Same with the softness, just a softer sound in general, but I can get adjusted to that.
But it is a sound that feels more like a "living creature" as opposed to a sound that is "carefully crafted" and extremely detailed yet, also "soulless", less natural in comparison. Still a major improvement over the ear-bleeding nature of the 009 or L300LE. (I can see why people find them appealing, I just can't listen to music like this.)

 

[number1sixerfan]

I don't agree and it is the bass that I actually find as the main weakness in the 007 Mk1. There is plenty of it, it's just not nearly as high quality as the midrange or treble and I am not sure how much power it really needs, if it is possible to fix it "completely". Same with the softness, just a softer sound in general, but I can get adjusted to that.
But it is a sound that feels more like a "living creature" as opposed to a sound that is "carefully crafted" and extremely detailed yet, also "soulless", less natural in comparison. Still a major improvement over the ear-bleeding nature of the 009 or L300LE. (I can see why people find them appealing, I just can't listen to music like this.)

I think we may just disagree here, but to clarify, when I mention landslide, I'm talking about technical ability. That's usually what I refer to because it's more objective. Overall tonality and presentation is far more subjective and I totally get if someone prefers the 007 in that regard over anything. Oh and on the bass point with the 007, totally agree--it definitely isn't as accurate, but it has the quantity and impact many people hate other stats for not having.

But technically speaking, the 009 is a clear step above (albiet not by some huge margin) to the 007. The x9000 is a clear step above the 009 (and again, not by a really huge margin). That is very clear to me, at least in my opinion. Detail, soundstage, layering and separation, accuracy.. all a step above.

I do think the x9000 has more of a natural timbre and less harshness than the 009 does at times, but I get if someone still prefers the 007 over either given how unique it is or if it's their favorite, as each of these are different. I do think the x9000 is going to be a better fit for people coming from (as a favorite) the 007 vs. the 009.

 

[padam]

I think we may just disagree here, but to clarify, when I mention landslide, I'm talking about technical ability. That's usually what I refer to because it's more objective. Overall tonality and presentation is far more subjective and I totally get if someone prefers the 007 in that regard over anything. Oh and on the bass point with the 007, totally agree--it definitely isn't as accurate, but it has the quantity and impact many people hate other stats for not having.

But technically speaking, the 009 is a clear step above (albiet not by some huge margin) to the 007. The x9000 is a clear step above the 009 (and again, not by a really huge margin). That is very clear to me, at least in my opinion. Detail, soundstage, layering and separation, accuracy.. all a step above.

I do think the x9000 has more of a natural timbre and less harshness than the 009 does at times, but I get if someone still prefers the 007 over either given how unique it is or if it's their favorite, as each of these are different. I do think the x9000 is going to be a better fit for people coming from (as a favorite) the 007 vs. the 009.

I guess I am way behind the curve now, as the term "natural sound" has been taken out of consideration for a long time, replaced by "objectively measurable technical ability".

And no, even "technically" I do not consider the X9000 a landslide above the 007. It is just a different presentation, that was described in those YT videos (that got instantly questioned...)
Just because something is layered or separated differently or makes details stand out more, it does not necessarily mean that it is superior. Just a different way or representing a stage in a headphone, it will work with a certain type of music while it won't work in a different type of music.

The SR-X Mk3 has "no soundstage", and yet with some music it simply renders the space better than those big Staxes (meaning: in a more natural, less artificial way, not adding space which is not there, eg. creating an "artificial virtual layer") and presents the instruments more convincingly as well.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I guess I am way behind the curve now, as the term "natural sound" has been taken out of consideration for a long time, replaced by "objectively measurable technical ability".

And no, even "technically" I do not consider the X9000 a landslide above the 007. It is just a different presentation, that was described in those YT videos (that got instantly questioned...)
Just because something is layered or separated differently or makes details stand out more, it does not necessarily mean that it is superior. Just a different way or representing a stage in a headphone, it will work with a certain type of music while it won't work in a different type of music.

Naturalness of the sound has always mattered to me, but it's just extremely subjective. Just like tonality and presentation.

I respect your opinion and I think we just have different POVs. In my opinion, if a headphone can do something that another clearly cannot--i.e. more resolving, more expansive soundstaging with more precise imaging, etc.. then it's technically better. If we don't assess those things and simply refer to it as a different presentation, then I think there's really no point or ability to evaluate and compare headphones against others. That's why I try to separate what's more subjective and what isn't.. although overall it's all clearly subjective--which again is why I respect your POV.

 

[padam]

If it "came for free", I would gladly accept that as being objectively better.
However, for me, there is an inherent byproduct with this type of "microscopic" presentation. Not only is is even more "directly" revealing, but also lighter, more ethereal, which I consider to be not a good thing on a lot of recordings. I do not like the idea of choosing recordings that are suited to this type of presentation (where musicality plays second fiddle after clarity and detail), it should not work that way, I would rather have less of this for the sake of being less picky.

I guess there was already a big "split" regarding the 007 vs 009, maybe fans of the latter might like this further progression, but I think Stax could do some more tweaking, which is odd to think about, when the price is already this high up.

I also do not know the definition of 'more precise imaging', if for me a stage and imaging in a headphone is always artificial, and it is only subjective which one is more to a listener's taste (depending on how the recording was made, e.g. minimally-miked, multi-channel, etc.)
The separation in the X9000 is certainly even stronger than before. But strong to a point, where it can "slice" the recording to pieces, and that's not a good thing, e.g. not superior in my book.
Same with the speed, faster in the X9000, but is it better? Not necessarily, this lightspeed can feel a bit spiky at times, which is a lot more annoying than having less speed but none of this weirdness.
When listening in complete darkness, the 007 can do several things the X9000 cannot.
Slower meaning less ethereal (which is better for me)
Has less width and air but more depth 3D and cohesiveness
More impact (in the treble as well, not just in bass)
And it has a "defined, more characterful" tone, which is not nearly as dry e.g. not as troublesome to match with other components.
Also works much better at low volumes, e.g. a bit more protective against hearing damage, I found the volume adjustment on the X9000 'more tricky'.
Only the bass is a big flaw to me and a big question mark regarding amping or other possible earpad-related mods (I also do not like the fit very much, although it may get improved soon)
While I cannot point any big particular flaw in the X9000 the same way as I can with the 007, it just sounds weird on a lot of occasions next to it.