[greggf]

Imo the sr-009 had better attack and more sparkle compared to the 009S. The track tsugaru jonkarabushi kakeai kyokuhiki really impressed me with the attack of the shamisen. Listening to it on my L700s I wasn't satisfied with the percussiveness of the string pluck.

Besides that the 009S was better, mainly because the music sounded more cohesive, but they are so similar I figured take the more economical headphone and eq it (would've eq'd the 009S too anyways). The technical ability seemed about the same.

The X9000 is better. It's hard to quantify but it sounds more spacious. Not like speakers but going in that direction. But I can only hear it if I'm really concentrating and the 009 is also spacious as long as I'm not directly comparing the SR-009 to the X9000. Of course with more time maybe the differences would become more obvious. $6500 is hard to justify when the 009 is already overwhelming my senses and it only cost $1900.

This "overwhelming my senses" at the expense of musical organicity seems to be more and more of a problem as headphone manufacturers increase technical fireworks. I'm coming to the conclusion that less-than-TOTL is more enjoyable, and, frankly, much more realistic. I'm in the process of ditching the X9000 for the 007Mk.II for just that reason.

 

[number1sixerfan]

This "overwhelming my senses" at the expense of musical organicity seems to be more and more of a problem as headphone manufacturers increase technical fireworks. I'm coming to the conclusion that less-than-TOTL is more enjoyable, and, frankly, much more realistic. I'm in the process of ditching the X9000 for the 007Mk.II for just that reason.

The x9000 is special, but across the board with new TOTL headphones (it included), I do agree that this is mainly true.

Nearly none of the TOTL's today can compare to the organic, natural and realistic tones of the vintage OG headphones, stats or not (R10, HE90, Omega, HP1000 etc). There is a clear chasing of technical performance gains at the expense of musicality (yes I know an incredibly and frustratingly subjective term). Would love to see more manufacturers try to rival the organic tone and realism of the OG TOTLs, while maintaining some of the technical improvements.

 

[timb5881]

Interesting! I listen to a lot of vintage estat phones. While the idea of TOTL headphones intrigues me, I am content with my old headphones.

 

[simmconn]

Pretty much every advancement in audio reproduction comes from the relentless chase of technical performance. They all aim to convey as close as possible the original sound to the listener. If a listener feels overwhelmed by the details, he/she might as well think about whether there is limited mental or sensory bandwidth by the listener to process those details in real time. If you are okay with or even prefer those decimated, truncated, obfuscated sound that contains only "the essence of music", you might as well live in the past.

 

[trumpet19019]

Pretty much every advancement in audio reproduction comes from the relentless chase of technical performance. They all aim to convey as close as possible the original sound to the listener. If a listener feels overwhelmed by the details, he/she might as well think about whether there is limited mental or sensory bandwidth by the listener to process those details in real time. If you are okay with or even prefer those decimated, truncated, obfuscated sound that contains only "the essence of music", you might as well live in the past.

A little unrelated, but what you are saying makes me think of the entire concept of trying to accurately reproduce a record. I have to exclude non acoustic music, because if the music is originally played through a speaker there are way too many variables.

For an example if I am listening to an electric guitar I am hearing a guitar sound through a guitar amp which could have a multitude of different sounds, being recorded by a microphone. And then if I apply eq like the harman curve I am trying to replicate on headphones how the sound of a guitar playing through an amp going into a microphone sounds through some theoretical speakers in a theoretical room where the bass is to the users preference.

With acoustic music there are issues too. Let's say a trumpet. Was it recorded in a small room or a big room? Is it a bflat trumpet, c trumpet, eflat trumpet, etc? Piston or rotary trumpet? What mouthpiece is the artist using? What is the configuration of their teeth? Where is the microphone? Have I heard this person live? Without knowing that information how can I ever truly know if something is accurate?

It goes beyond that too. Let's say I eq my SR-009s to the harman target. I like how they sound. In my opinion it sounds accurate. Now I am listening to a symphony. Wow with the harman target I can hear the bass so accurately. But wait hearing an orchestra live a lot of the bass parts are hard to hear (obviously ignoring a tuba or timpani). In the recording I can hear the double bass a lot more clearly then I can in real life.

In a way I am hearing an extremely accurate representation of the music that was performed. In another way I am hearing something extremely unrealistic. For myself I enjoy the extreme detail and microscope like performance a good headphone can provide. However, I also believe that a lot of the time I am hearing more detail than what I would hear live. It's still enjoyable especially with electrostatic headphones, because you can look at any instrument in the score and follow along in a way you can't always do hearing it live.

 

[NCUS]

I'm not sure it's an issue of mental capacity. Some people like a smoothed over sound because it's more relaxing. Some people want to hear everything.

Acoustics also change depending on where you are listening. Anyone who ever has sat in an orchestra next to other musicians and in front of the brass section knows not to expect consistently smoothed over sound. A listener far removed because he/she is sitting in the very top of a concert hall will hear something more diffuse.

 

[mulveling]

The x9000 is special, but across the board with new TOTL headphones (it included), I do agree that this is mainly true.

Nearly none of the TOTL's today can compare to the organic, natural and realistic tones of the vintage OG headphones, stats or not (R10, HE90, Omega, HP1000 etc). There is a clear chasing of technical performance gains at the expense of musicality (yes I know an incredibly and frustratingly subjective term). Would love to see more manufacturers try to rival the organic tone and realism of the OG TOTLs, while maintaining some of the technical improvements.

The problem with pursuing greater technical levels (defining what exactly this means is another topic) is that: 1) it's often (not always) at the expense of the "musical whole" and 2) your brain adapts to that new level of information, and then it's not "fun" anymore. Once the bar has raised, it's not going down again. I think I instantly hated the HD800 (a feeling which remains today) because I'd already heard Qualia (and even SA5000) do most of its tricks so much better.

100% agree that "organic, natural and realistic tones" generally has durable staying power in my affections. For me, this is best embodied by L3000 (in the headphone world), but I totally understand and appreciate why it's more often he90 and R10 (and sometimes HP1000) for other audiophiles - each one a work of sonic art that will never go stale.

 

[urs]

On the risk of being a “spoil sport”…

I note that some listeners do prefer vintage phones as playing more musical and organic, etc.
Now my nasty question: Is it a problem of the more detailed (modern) phones ??
Or maybe – just maybe !? – Rather a problem of the new more revealing digital source material ?

I own now - after using most TOTL STAX phones before – the X9000. With CDs I indeed might follow the above mentioned notion of “too much details”, but only with badly recorded or re-mastered CDs
With my all-tube phono-chain however, the X9000 just excels and I could not remember to have such harmonic & musical sound ever before. Detailed and transparent: YES ! Overwhelming. Never !!

A should add: My music is mainly classical & opera, instrumental jazz & folk and voices, but no electronic, and yes: Much of my LP / Vinyl stuff are also very vintage…

In contrast: for my “modern” material, such as PC- /Video- & YouTube- monitoring, including doing some analogue to digital transfer work, I’m very happy with my old & trusted “battleship” , the 007 with its more laid-back sound signature.

Regards
Urs

BTW: I did own also some non-Estats Vintage Kings...

 

[padam]

Pretty much every advancement in audio reproduction comes from the relentless chase of technical performance. They all aim to convey as close as possible the original sound to the listener. If a listener feels overwhelmed by the details, he/she might as well think about whether there is limited mental or sensory bandwidth by the listener to process those details in real time. If you are okay with or even prefer those decimated, truncated, obfuscated sound that contains only "the essence of music", you might as well live in the past.

The problem with posts like this is being full of generalisations and hyperboles.
I do not think many of use would like an "obfuscated" sound.
Audio in general is quite complex, very far from being black and white.

It is just like the Babylonian Confusion. There are different types of music, from different eras, recorded by different equipment, mixed differently by different people, and so on and so forth. There is no unified standard on how it should be done or what is an "original" sound.
In that case all headphones suck even just by measurements, because each and every one of them shows notable colorations - and we aren't even sure what is the right target in the first place for 'accurate reproduction', not to mention other characteristics attributed to certain driver types.

But even just staying with estats, I tried to explain before, that attack and decay can affect my perception in a significant way, even though a thinner, even lower-mass diaphragm, decreased membrane to stator gap etc. should provide yet more resolution (which was never at a level that was 'fuzzy' in the first place but it also seems to be more prone to reliability problems). I am not sure if there is such a thing as 'superior' technology. They have different strengths and weaknesses that can be more valuable depending on many factors and people perceive them differently.

But all this infinite number of different music and recording 'style' is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be. We know about loudness war and the legacy. There are many recordings, which are in general 'not as great' as others. Does that mean that we don't listen to them because we don't value the music? I think not, or at least I don't.
But on the other hand, there are many others which are good, but for different reasons. Variety is not bad in that sense.
I think it would be pretty boring, if this was (to an extent) more 'unified', and there were certain 'rules' on the vocal should be placed like this with this microphone at this distance (with this pop filter or whatever), it should sound like this with this compressor or EQ, use a Bricasti processor to add reverb (yes they aren't just known for their DACs) etc. etc.

I hope the point is clear, but I tried to bring out photography as an analogy here: Most 'forgiving' TOTL headphone in your opinion?
There is a certain photography style that I like and there is a certain way which images are process that is more appealing to me.
Does that mean that I can only look through that 'filter' and not appreciate others that are completely different? Absolutely not.


If I could take the "sound" of the original Lambdas, old Omegas HE90, etc. with new technical improvements, would I take it?
At least in theory, yes, sure, why not.
But what is actually here right now with the L700Mk2, X9000, HE1 etc. etc.?
Something that's quite different. Even measurements I see that rather than new being flat out better than the old.

We can also look at the DIY T2 amp section (just like the original) and yet, it is at the very least tied for the top spot for estat amps.

And it's a minor point, but also, "every advancement in audio" is partly about having a more efficient, streamlined production with more readily available parts coupled to effective marketing to sell you that product or continuously evolve to sell you the next "advanced" product.
All this would not work without profit being the main incentive. I do not care that much as long as the product is convincing - whether that is affected by my pre-bias due to the use of certain vintage products I am not sure, I certainly see advantages and flaws in any product which is what I generally find lacking in most reviews.

 

[timb5881]

In hi end audio, measurement is not the highest priority. If you read Stereophile, they give you both. Often, John Atkinson would point out in the measurements that a certain this or that was what the reviewer noted. This offers credibility to both.

 

[catscratch]

Eh the whole technical vs musical thing to me seems kinda nonsense. Having heard what was one of the best speaker systems in the world bar none at the time - Doug Sax's old mastering lab in Ojai - made it pretty clear that what measured well in speakers and was technically as close to perfect as we could get, also sounded exceptionally musical and lush and was way warmer than I thought it was going to be.

Analytical is a coloration. If stuff sounds sterile, it's wrong. If something is ultra detailed, fast, dynamic, but it sounds off and isn't musical, it's technically also wrong. Accurate should sound musical. And "musical" is something that should be quantifiable.

I really think the science of headphone measurement and design is in its infancy, and the reason why so few of us can agree on what's good and what's not is because science isn't sufficiently advanced enough to reproduce consistent results for each of us. If it was, there wouldn't be as much disagreement.

This, of course, doesn't mean that we need to say measurements are meaningless or audio science is pointless, it's just the opposite. But as of right now we need to recognize its limitations.

P.S. most actual experts in audio - electrical engineers, mastering engineers, the people who actually make your music and your gear - are more subjectivist than objectivist. Think about that, and what it means.

Not sure if that 100% relates to the argument at hand but hey, I'm drunk. What else is new.

 

[simmconn]

I wonder if your statement in the P.S. part is subjective or objective. What's the criteria to determine if an "actual expert in audio" is a subjectivist or an objectivist? And where is the data that supports your simple conclusion of "more"? It sounds just like any "better"/"worse" preference which is more of an opinion than a fact.

 

[catscratch]

Don't take my word for it, take Jason Stoddard's:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...obable-start-up.701900/page-690#post-12447731

But since I've ruffled some feathers already, I'll go ahead and ruffle some more.

Objectivism has become so popular so fast for two reasons. One, audio is expensive, and graphs measuring audio are not. It's why car nuts online spend so much time debating 0-60 times while rich car collectors simply drive them. Two, for a nerd the feeling of understanding something is a huge release of endorphins, that "a-ha!" light bulb moment. Objectivism preys on this because it reduces audio to a couple of simple graphs and makes you feel like you understand. This is a very powerful thing, and it takes advantage of it. Reality, sadly, is more complicated and the lightbulb moments are much more hard earned.

As for me? I'm mostly an objectivist. I wait for squiggles before I buy anything. I like the lightbulb moment even if I know any mental picture I have of anything is probably wrong. And I think that as so much of audio descends into a luxury hobby and gets inundated with $10,000 cables objectivism provides a vital counterbalance to this. But you have to understand its limits.

 

[number1sixerfan]

On my end, I didn't mean to open a can of worms lol. I was just speaking to a very simple difference in tonality that many have observed between older and newer TOTL headphones.

As others have stated, the L3000, HE90, HE60, R10, the list goes on, all seem to have a smoother, more natural tone than most of the TOTL headphones out there today. Many of those same also seem to be a small step behind the highest regarded TOTL headphones today technically (which makes sense given technological advancements), i.e. x9000, Sr1a, etc. I think it's more of a mere tradeoff and nothing much deeper than that, not calling headphones of today sterile, analytical etc. etc., they just simply don't have that same tone, realism and ease to the listen (even though many do just fine in this regard, just not at the same level). And the vintage headphones don't have the technical wow factors of the very best today. All subjective opinion of course.

 

[catscratch]

Yeah but it's a good can of worms.

Mmmm... worms.