The Stax Thread III

[Svperstar]

I disagree with the assertion that the 009 is overly bright, it is brighter than average but not troublingly so, however if you are used to the 007 it might as well be a Grado. I have no factual basis for this next comment (lol) but I think if you gave 10 listeners the 007 and the 009, and they had never heard either, the majority would say the 009 is more neutral than the 007. It skews less bright than the 007 skews dark.

I think the 009 will be vindicated in time and its reputation as a controversial headphone is undeserved for the most part. It is the apotheosis of that entire era of Stax and is the most stereotypically "electrostatic" headphone ever made imo, for better or worse.

Also to be clear I do mean specifically the 009 and not the 009S. I feel the same way about the 009S as the Senn 800S, sidegrade at best.

All this talk about the 009 is making me wish I picked one up lol, I just heard it basically has no bass at all and that scared me off of it. Been a huge fan of Audeze for years so I knew if I didn't buy the CRBN I would always wonder about it. Its interesting you mentioned the 800/800S, I don't find the HD800 overly bright at all. I removed the mod when I got mine and I do have an EQ profile for Equalizer APO that takes the 6k peak into account but its not a big deal to me.

 

[padam]

Alek JK74
Jonathan
Bob Katz
Roy Romaz
Pyrates
Aaron (ab_ba)
HeadRoom Jamie & Mike
Brian
Tyll Conclusion

scoring approximately 50-50, some like this, some like that (but I think a good Mk1 is overall ahead of an Mk2)
I wouldn't say brightness is the "only" 009 issue, I agree with some of the points in Asr's mini-review as well. To be fair, the 007 has it's own disadvantages, I just find a fatiguing headphone more difficult to live with.
In the end, there are certain recordings, where one should be most concerned with the music itself rather than how the headphone portrays this or that, that is why I don't like the less organic, attention-grabbing nature of the 009 and X9K.

 

[Svperstar]

Just chiming in to add that the 007 is very hard to properly drive. I'm more of a fan of the 009 naturally, but when I moved from the BHSE to the T2, I was really impressed with just how much better it was. For the longest of time I viewed the 009 as just incredibly better technically. It IS better imo, but the 007 is very special in its own right despite not being as open or as resolving, and the gap isn't what I originally thought it was.

I don't think you need a T2, and I would imagine given everything I've read of people's experiences, the carbon would be really ideal power wise and synergistically. But I do think a lot of people are listening to this headphone underpowered. As another reference point, I have had the SRM1-MK2 and T1s as backups and they just don't do *full* justice for the 007 or my SGL Sr., which are two of the hardest stats to power I've experienced.

I almost bought a KGSSHV after I got the T1S in because I kept reading that the 007 wasn't properly powered off of it. There is only a 15% difference in impedance between the 007 and the 009. I decided to get the 717 first because the 717 was specifically made for the 007. Going from 300v RMS to 450v RMS.

There is a difference but it isn't as massive as I thought. If I listen to the 007 on the T1S and put on my favorite albums from High School that I have heard 1,000 times everything is there I remember hearing.

In DMS people will say "There is a difference between estat amps but its not that big of a deal" but in public the differences are MASSIVE, interesting to me.

 

[padam]

If you switch one Stax amp to another, differences are less significant, similar parts and PSU design, in case of those two amps resistor-based load, etc. etc.

Aftermarket amps however with regulated PSU, CCS, etc. have more of a palpably different character to them regarding sound signature, timing, spatiality, etc. so it's not just more power.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Alek JK74
Jonathan
Bob Katz
Roy Romaz
Pyrates
Aaron (ab_ba)
HeadRoom Jamie & Mike
Brian
Tyll Conclusion

scoring approximately 50-50, some like this, some like that (but I think a good Mk1 is overall ahead of an Mk2)
I wouldn't say brightness is the "only" 009 issue, I agree with some of the points in Asr's mini-review as well. To be fair, the 007 has it's own disadvantages, I just find a fatiguing headphone more difficult to live with.
In the end, there are certain recordings, where one should be most concerned with the music itself rather than how the headphone portrays this or that, that is why I don't like the less organic, attention-grabbing nature of the 009 and X9K.

For me, I've learned to divide stax users into 3 buckets when it comes to the 009/007 conversation:

1. 007 lovers that just won't like headphones that are analytical ever.. i.e. same group that doesn't really enjoy the 009 and x9k
2. 009 lovers that don't enjoy the 007 as it's just not resolving enough.. i.e. same group that also really enjoys the x9k
3. Unicorns like myself that enjoy both lol (although I definitely fall more into bucket #2)

These are loose generalizations, obviously this won't always be the case, but I see it pretty consistently on here.

Within that context, it's not surprising to me at all that other people have more bones to pick with the 009 than I do. Brightness is the only issue for me, as the rest of its presentation is excellent and highly resolving. But totally get how it isn't everyone's cup of tea. The only reason I think it has faded in popularity is because 1) you have the x9k which is just better across the board although different, and 2) there are plenty of newer TOTL headphones that are analytical yet not as fatiguing. I do hope there's a 009 TOTL successor at some point, as the x9k really isn't it, as it's more relaxed with a bit of a recessed midrange.

I almost bought a KGSSHV after I got the T1S in because I kept reading that the 007 wasn't properly powered off of it. There is only a 15% difference in impedance between the 007 and the 009. I decided to get the 717 first because the 717 was specifically made for the 007. Going from 300v RMS to 450v RMS.

There is a difference but it isn't as massive as I thought. If I listen to the 007 on the T1S and put on my favorite albums from High School that I have heard 1,000 times everything is there I remember hearing.

In DMS people will say "There is a difference between estat amps but its not that big of a deal" but in public the differences are MASSIVE, interesting to me.

All that matters is what matters to you. I can only say for myself there was quite a jump going from the BHSE to the T2 for the 007 and SGL Sr. Others, not so much really. And there's a similar jump between the BHSE and the T1s. All of the same detail and sounds are there, but there's an improvement in dynamics in each of these groups of comparisons. In fact, the only issue I personally have with Stax amps is that they are all softer compared to third party amps, especially when it comes to bass. But no, you won't be missing parts of the music at all, it's just about whether or not they're performing to the best of their ability.

 

[padam]

For me, I've learned to divide stax users into 3 buckets when it comes to the 009/007 conversation:

1. 007 lovers that just won't like headphones that are analytical ever.. i.e. same group that doesn't really enjoy the 009 and x9k
2. 009 lovers that don't enjoy the 007 as it's just not resolving enough.. i.e. same group that also really enjoys the x9k
3. Unicorns like myself that enjoy both lol (although I definitely fall more into bucket #2)

Apart from the slightly flabby bass and lesser dynamics, I don't hear other areas where the 007 is not resolving enough.
For sure the 009 pushes certain frequencies forward, like boosting clarity on an image, but I don't hear that as more resolving per se.
Alternatively, I can interpret the 007 as more resolving, since it has this incredible 3D spatial focus on a solo or group of similar instruments or voices within the virtual stage, that I have not really witnessed anywhere else, other headphones either "decouple" them into separate parts, or not focus on them much.
I can only scientifically interpret this as the combination of a slightly over-emphasized upper treble (air) frequencies coupled to a fully isolating earpad design (at least on the stock Mk1) with a smaller cavity that makes L-R positioning quite precise, reducing crosstalk. Downside is that at other times, it can also feel that the two sides are 'too separated', while the slightly out-of-focus extra bit of crosstalk on an Omega makes its stage more uniform.

So besides 'evident detail', I also try to pay attention to how the sound of an instrument is rendered rather than the 'detail' it conveys, and if squeezing that few extra % comes with the compromise of a faster, drier, weightless sound (very fast, but smeared attack and decay, planar fans may especially notice that), it may not really worth it (for me).

I actually prefer the OG Lambda to both, if I had to choose one. For sure, there is a teeny bit of roll-off and bass texture is poor.
But: the "90% leftover sound" is a lot easier to interpret, a lot of harshness it being gently filtered out without being murky, no "spatiality tricks" (it's just simply spacious enough), macro-dynamic content that I call "bite" is very much relevant to the music (micro-dynamics are more of a big Stax territory) the physical damping in the housing with the "supposedly under-developed 1st-gen 2-micron thick diaphragm" makes images thicker, denser, rather than big holographs floating in space, and there is much more detail relevant to the music (the resolving power is still immense and far overwhelms the capability of the listener), leading to a more immersive, crystal-clear experience. To my ears, it seems one of the most "gimmick-free" estats out there (ymmv).

Sigma Pro is another real oddball, one of the most unbalanced FR from Stax, yet the "harmonic composition" and spatiality of the sound makes me adjust to its sound and still enjoy the music a lot more than what the measurements might indicate, it's not just about being too bright or too dark on a measuring rig, it is also about how that sound is "built up from the ground" - if that makes sense...

 

[Chefguru]

Apart from the slightly flabby bass and lesser dynamics, I don't hear other areas where the 007 is not resolving enough.
For sure the 009 pushes certain frequencies forward, like boosting clarity on an image, but I don't hear that as more resolving per se.
Alternatively, I can interpret the 007 as more resolving, since it has this incredible 3D spatial focus on a solo or group of similar instruments or voices within the virtual stage, that I have not really witnessed anywhere else, other headphones either "decouple" them into separate parts, or not focus on them much.
I can only scientifically interpret this as the combination of a slightly over-emphasized upper treble (air) frequencies coupled to a fully isolating earpad design (at least on the stock Mk1) with a smaller cavity that makes L-R positioning quite precise, reducing crosstalk. Downside is that at other times, it can also feel that the two sides are 'too separated', while the slightly out-of-focus extra bit of crosstalk on an Omega makes its stage more uniform.

So besides 'evident detail', I also try to pay attention to how the sound of an instrument is rendered rather than the 'detail' it conveys, and if squeezing that few extra % comes with the compromise of a faster, drier, weightless sound (very fast, but smeared attack and decay, planar fans may especially notice that), it may not really worth it (for me).

I actually prefer the OG Lambda to both, if I had to choose one. For sure, there is a teeny bit of roll-off and bass texture is poor.
But: the "90% leftover sound" is a lot easier to interpret, a lot of harshness it being gently filtered out without being murky, no "spatiality tricks" (it's just simply spacious enough), macro-dynamic content that I call "bite" is very much relevant to the music (micro-dynamics are more of a big Stax territory) the physical damping in the housing with the "supposedly under-developed 1st-gen 2-micron thick diaphragm" makes images thicker, denser, rather than big holographs floating in space, and there is much more detail relevant to the music (the resolving power is still immense and far overwhelms the capability of the listener), leading to a more immersive, crystal-clear experience. To my ears, it seems one of the most "gimmick-free" estats out there (ymmv).

Sigma Pro is another real oddball, one of the most unbalanced FR from Stax, yet the "harmonic composition" and spatiality of the sound makes me adjust to its sound and still enjoy the music a lot more than what the measurements might indicate, it's not just about being too bright or too dark on a measuring rig, it is also about how that sound is "built up from the ground" - if that makes sense...

This mirrors my experience.

An early mk1 007 is not less resolving than the 009.
The sz1 mk1 I had, was congested, but the 4x 70xxx/71xxx were incredibly detailed.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I don't think you'll find any 009 fans to agree that the 007 is equally as resolving lol, and I know I don't lol. But I think that's kind of the point I was making, fans of each seem to hear and perceive them both differently, which is totally fine.

And at least for in terms of what I mean when it comes to resolving, the big thing that stands out differently between the two is the clarity, as mentioned in the above post. I do see that as a component of resolving and it's a big difference between the two. I wanted to clarify here, as I'm not saying the 007 isn't resolving or detailed, simply not as resolving to me. But again, very predictable given my preferences.

 

[Chefguru]

I don't think you'll find any 009 fans to agree that the 007 is equally as resolving lol, and I know I don't lol. But I think that's kind of the point I was making, fans of each seem to hear and perceive them both differently, which is totally fine.

And at least for in terms of what I mean when it comes to resolving, the big thing that stands out differently between the two is the clarity, as mentioned in the above post. I do see that as a component of resolving and it's a big difference between the two. I wanted to clarify here, as I'm not saying the 007 isn't resolving or detailed, simply not as resolving to me. But again, very predictable given my preferences.

Have you actually listened to the 70xxx/71xxx models yourself? I don't mean to criticize, but these discussion threads are for sharing opinions based on firsthand experience. It seems like some people are critiquing things they haven't even heard themselves. Too much of that kind of uninformed criticism leads to groupthink.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Have you actually listened to the 70xxx/71xxx models yourself? I don't mean to criticize, but these discussion threads are for sharing opinions based on firsthand experience. It seems like some people are critiquing things they haven't even heard themselves. Too much of that kind of uninformed criticism leads to groupthink.

I didn't speak to that model whatsoever, I'm speaking to what I've heard and owned, which is several models and the 007 overall. You brought up that specific model, not I nor the poster before. Now my personal belief is that no version of the 007 is going to be so drastically different that it competes clarity wise with the 009, as they are just voiced differently. The post earlier in this thread that talked about how brighter tones result in greater perceived detail was an excellent one. If your perspective is that it does, then that's fine.

But again, I don't care to speak to that version, as not hearing a niche, limited SN of the 007 doesn't mean you haven't heard them at all. And I have heard plenty. No different than my perspective on the MK1 vs. the MK2. One is better, sure. But they aren't completely different headphones. And people have also shared that same perspective with me from the 70/71xxx models, but again, I've not heard them.

 

[padam]

To balance things out regarding sample variations, versions, etc., I would also like to mention that before my 'sabbatical', I did extensively test a 009 10+ years ago, one of the early units, and my (in)experience was different then compared to now, and I thought it looked good against an Omega that I had. Still used the same source as I do now, still have a similar Stax amp that I use sometimes, too. But last time I did this comparison against another Omega (that seems to be the same version/sound to me, I just evaluate it differently in hindsight of what came out since then) I felt it didn't stand up as well despite being technically proficient.

Whether it was due to being a better early unit (I think it is a possibility) or due to me not being prone to headache then compared to know or just evaluate the term brightness differently - just don't know anymore.

And until I can experience an Mk2.9 I can only continue to trust the headphonesty review, that it may be on the same level, since the Mk1 article matches perfectly with what I'm hearing with my best unit and some of the things in that upper mid/treble area look like an improvement frequency-wise, although I wonder if they actually take away some of the magic as well.

 

[Chefguru]

I didn't speak to that model whatsoever, I'm speaking to what I've heard and owned, which is several models and the 007 overall. You brought up that specific model, not I nor the poster before. Now my personal belief is that no version of the 007 is going to be so drastically different that it competes clarity wise with the 009, as they are just voiced differently. The post earlier in this thread that talked about how brighter tones result in greater perceived detail was an excellent one. If your perspective is that it does, then that's fine.

But again, I don't care to speak to that version, as not hearing a niche, limited SN of the 007 doesn't mean you haven't heard them at all. And I have heard plenty. No different than my perspective on the MK1 vs. the MK2. One is better, sure. But they aren't completely different headphones. And people have also shared that same perspective with me from the 70/71xxx models, but again, I've not heard them.

You and I see eye-to-eye on things but I feel the need to clarify this because a lot of comments end up echoed perpetually until someone confirms it is wrong again. This personally effected me and swayed my opinion for a long time because I owned a sz1 mk1 and hadn't heard a 70/71.

The 70xxx-71xxx serial is not a niche mk1 line. This was from the mk1 from 1998 to 2005. There are differences between them as the 70 is darker and the 71 brighter, but all of the models in that range suffice. It is actually the sz1 mk1 that is the niche headphone that was driver changed late 2005. The official Mk2 came out in 2007. MK2 port mod sounds a lot like the sz1, confirming that these two share the same or at least similar drivers.

The early Mk1 drivers require about 10-20% higher gain to reach the same volume level. Their sound is notably clearer and more spacious in the treble. By comparison, the sz1 sounds more closed-in or muffled.

Just because someone believes all 007 models sound identical does not make it true. I would also say that the difference between the 70/71 mk1 and the sz1 is larger than the improvement on the sz1 from going from a regular stax amp to a t2.

 

[tabness]

I didn't speak to that model whatsoever, I'm speaking to what I've heard and owned, which is several models and the 007 overall. You brought up that specific model, not I nor the poster before. Now my personal belief is that no version of the 007 is going to be so drastically different that it competes clarity wise with the 009, as they are just voiced differently. The post earlier in this thread that talked about how brighter tones result in greater perceived detail was an excellent one. If your perspective is that it does, then that's fine.

But again, I don't care to speak to that version, as not hearing a niche, limited SN of the 007 doesn't mean you haven't heard them at all. And I have heard plenty. No different than my perspective on the MK1 vs. the MK2. One is better, sure. But they aren't completely different headphones. And people have also shared that same perspective with me from the 70/71xxx models, but again, I've not heard them.

Yep, the clarity perception of a phone is based on various things such as auditory masking, reverb/decay, and quite importantly, the upper mids/lower treble region, and the last one is obviously a big point of departure from the 009 to the 007 (and certainly I don't think we need to retreat into a naive almost solipsistic empiricism "you didn't listen to this phone on this amp with this setup" yada yada yada to at least determine this in a general sense). Clarity like this does unfortunately generally seem to come at a price of skewing the tonality

 

[number1sixerfan]

You and I see eye-to-eye on things but I feel the need to clarify this because a lot of comments end up echoed perpetually until someone confirms it is wrong again. This personally effected me and swayed by opinion for a long time because I owned a sz1 mk1 and hadn't heard a 70/71.

The 70xxx-71xxx serial is not a niche mk1 line. This was from the mk1 from 1998 to 2005. There are differences between them as the 70 is darker and the 71 brighter, but all of the models in that range suffice. It is actually the sz1 mk1 that is the niche headphone that was driver changed late 2005. The official Mk2 came out in 2007. MK2 port mod sounds a lot like the sz1, confirming that these two share the same or at least similar drivers.

The early Mk1 drivers require about 10-20% higher gain to reach the same volume level. Their sound is notably clearer and more spacious in the treble. By comparison, the sz1 sounds more closed-in or muffled.

Just because someone believes all 007 models sound identical does not make it true.

There is right or wrong here, there is simply opinion. I also didn't say that all sound exactly identical, I fully acknowledge that there are differences in all of the variations, and everyone I've spoken to about the 70/71 also have. Where I think opinion differs is on what level of a difference, which is up for debate for the people that have heard them. There is nothing that makes your opinion right or their opinion wrong, rather than what ultimately matters to you.

I am simply stating 1) that unless a variation completely changes how the 007 is overall voiced (which we just haven't seen consistently w/Stax), it is not going to have the same perceived clarity as the 009, for the reasons discussed earlier regarding tonality (if you believe it does, that's totally fine). 2) simply because there is a variation that's better that one may not have owned or have heard doesn't mean it invalidates other models that they have heard--but this is opinion and we may simply agree to disagree.

Also, it's totally fine and ok that we don't agree here . It's nothing personal or serious. But again, I'm wasn't honing in on that specific variation and was totally in line with how we use these boards in sharing general 007 perspective.

 

[Chefguru]

I am simply stating 1) that unless a variation completely changes how the 007 is overall voiced (which we just haven't seen consistently w/Stax), it is not going to have the same perceived clarity as the 009, for the reasons discussed earlier regarding tonality (if you believe it does, that's totally fine).

I am saying that. They are not the same driver.
Every lambda has basically the same housing but the driver is different. The LNS does not sound like l700.