[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.

 

[tabness]

The changes from the 007 MK1 to MK2 seem pretty significant: different driver (even just dimension wise the 007 MK1 driver is larger), the closeness of the driver to the ear (MK1 is closer), and introduction of the port on the MK2.

The changes on the 009S from the 009 seem smaller, the latter has the different stators with gold plating and a finer etching ("MLER2") as well as the changed back grill shape, though pretty sure they use a very similar diaphragm or the improvements STAX calls out have never been detailed (same thickness though). Oh and the pads might have changed as well, since the newer 009 and 009BK use different pads than the earlier 009s.

 

[number1sixerfan]

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.

So to be clear, you're saying the 007 variation you're referencing is closer in tonality to the 009 than the 007? That is what I am getting at here.

 

[Chefguru]

So to be clear, you're saying the 007 variation you're referencing is closer in tonality to the 009 than the 007? That is what I am getting at here.

Now were getting somewhere. Yes. The OG 007s have clarity similar to that of the 009 but with a smaller soundstage but with better head stage. They have less bass than the sz1/mk2, but more than the 009. The 71xxx is more treble tilted, and the 70xxx is darker (not more bass, just less treble and seems to have a more diffused soundstage) - but both are excellent.

The idea of the 007 being the "odd" headphone is more so because of the sz1/mk2, and while those do resemble the 007 in some regards, it's much harder to see why stax would have done such a 180 to the 009 unless you hear the actual intention of the headphone.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Now were getting somewhere. Yes. The OG 007s have clarity similar to that of the 009 but with a smaller soundstage but with better head stage. They have less bass than the sz1/mk2, but more than the 009. The 71xxx is more treble tilted, and the 70xxx is darker (not more bass, just less treble and seems to have a more diffused soundstage) - but both are excellent.

The idea of the 007 being the "odd" headphone is more so because of the sz1/mk2, and while those do resemble the 007 in some regards, it's much harder to see why stax would have done such a 180 to the 009 unless you hear the actual intention of the headphone.

Cool, that's your perspective and I'm not invalidating it. I have heard otherwise, but again I haven't heard them personally. I have my beliefs of what I'd find to likely be true, but I will likely never hear them. I am for sure more interested in hearing them, but I also have been since you've been talking about them.. I've never discredited your pov on them, and this is more detailed than some posts previously.

That said, back to my original point that I wasn't talking about a specific variation when talking about the 007 and I'm still not. And despite this variation, it doesn't make sense to relegate conversation on the 007 broadly because of a small subset variation. If these were the largest volume or one of the largest volume variations, that would be different. And if it's that different, it almost gives reason to exclude from the comparison and conversation.

 

[catscratch]

I'm not gonna weigh in on the 009 vs 007 debate, but I do want to say that the mk2.9 or w/e 007 is in no way dark to my ears. Yes, it has a recessed upper mid and the midrange tonality skews dark, but after about 7khz treble is actually elevated, and above 10khz it is 6db north of what i find neutral at least.

My 71xxx mk1 is not only highly resolving but using a test tone generator, the FR sounds basically ruler flat to my ears, and so far it is the only headphone to have ever done so, even including stuff like the HD650.

Of course, that just means it matches my HRTF very well, and for others it will sound different. But it is a massive shame that this thing is no longer in production.

The dynamics can be a problem though. It's a bit too soft and the mk2.9 is noticeably more lively.

 

[ESL-1]

I'm not gonna weigh in on the 009 vs 007 debate, but I do want to say that the mk2.9 or w/e 007 is in no way dark to my ears. Yes, it has a recessed upper mid and the midrange tonality skews dark, but after about 7khz treble is actually elevated, and above 10khz it is 6db north of what i find neutral at least.

My 71xxx mk1 is not only highly resolving but using a test tone generator, the FR sounds basically ruler flat to my ears, and so far it is the only headphone to have ever done so, even including stuff like the HD650.

Of course, that just means it matches my HRTF very well, and for others it will sound different. But it is a massive shame that this thing is no longer in production.

The dynamics can be a problem though. It's a bit too soft and the mk2.9 is noticeably more lively.

I did not catch the beginning but let’s not forget the amp in the equation. I very much like my SR007 mk1. I feel it is definitely a model that will show differences with different amps. My Stax SRM-717 did a fine job of driving and matching the 007. That is until I received my Eksonics Aeras amp. I don’t listen to the 717 much anymore. The Aeras really brings them more to live and more open. There is definitely some T2 DNA in the Aeras and it does sound great with all my PRO bias Stax especially the Stax SR-X mk3 PRO, a rare bird indeed.

Enjoy the music.
Below, my 717 with company

 

[ESL-1]

Voided

 

[Svperstar]

Quick question, people who say the 007 is less resolving then the 009, can you please offer some specific tracks where people can experience this lack of resolution on the 007?

I don't have the 009 on hand, but I do have the CRBN, L500 mk2, Koss 95X, and an HD800 and Arya Organic, which I believe are all on the high end of resolving.

I'm just curious what specific tracks I can hear any lack of detail on the 007.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quick question, people who say the 007 is less resolving then the 009, can you please offer some specific tracks where people can experience this lack of resolution on the 007?

I don't have the 009 on hand, but I do have the CRBN, L500 mk2, Koss 95X, and an HD800 and Arya Organic, which I believe are all on the high end of resolving.

I'm just curious what specific tracks I can hear any lack of detail on the 007.

It's not that the 007 lacks detail or "isn't resolving", everything that's there in the 009 and is also there in the 007. It's not a track dependent thing. At the end of the day, they are both voiced completely differently. The 009 is brighter and the 007 is darker.. talking about the average, large volume of models most people have heard/owned. The 009 has greater clarity, which is quite similar to that of say the Sr1a, both of which are quite higher in nature than the 007. That alone provides a clearer picture into the music and a more resolving sense of sound (subjectively). The second aspect that also impacts this is that the 009 feels a bit more open, with a bit better imaging and more "air". These things combined and the 009 comes off as more resolving. For the 009, this also comes at the cost of a somewhat fatiguing sound and lighter bass--similar to complaints you'll see against the Sr1a and HD800 in example.

It's why both of those headphones are considered more analytical and highly detailed. It's also why some find them too bright or analytical for them. x9k falls into a similar boat here.

 

[dkdali]

These things combined and the 009 comes off as more resolving. For the 009, this also comes at the cost of a somewhat fatiguing sound and lighter bass

Worth noting that the 009 takes EQ’ing really well so you can fairly easy treat the high treble and low bass that way though it will never be a set for bass-heads
I personally EQ my 009’s in Roon and love the results!

 

[Svperstar]

It's why both of those headphones are considered more analytical and highly detailed. It's also why some find them too bright or analytical for them. x9k falls into a similar boat here.

I saw a chart in another thread showing the X9000 as 90mm and the 007/009 as 78mm, at 90mm I wonder if you could put the Audeze non-leather LCD-2 pads on? They really improve the bass on the LCD-2. If I had an X9000 would be a fun project.

 

[tjlindle]

If I've never heard a track before, I hear it for the first time and there are details that I don't pick up on due to FR-induced auditory masking, I personally consider that "less resolving" even if technically everything is there.

That is highly subjective but honestly, I think that at this point these high-end transducers have far outclassed the source music files, most of the Lambda I would already consider "fully resolving," I think they present everything that is present in the source recording. It may be presented with less nuance, or you might perceive less resonances, reverb tails etc, but I think if you listen very closely they are actually there, just not readily apparent due to congestion or masking.

So to me even if the 007 (I have heard the 2.9 to be exact, so I can't comment on earlier versions) is just as fully resolving as the 009 (on a technical level, I am sure it is), I personally consider it "less resolving" in an applied sense because when I listen to the 007 on a new track/recording/whatever, there are nuances of detail that I will miss. If I switch to the 009 they are immediately apparent.

I can then go back to the 007 with that knowledge and familiarity with the recording and be like "Oh, yea there it is." But it is buried in some dark corner that I never would have noticed it in without the 009 saying "Hey look at this thing."

I guess that is the core problem though, a lot of people will say that is unnatural, it was supposed to be buried in that corner and the 009 isn't supposed to pull it out and have you looking at it. To borrow the phrasing from a movie title, "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once."

I am very happy daily driving the 009BK and the NB Lambda. The 009BK is for listening and the Lambda is for feeling, honestly I can't imagine a headphone that can combine the two without sacrificing in one direction or the other. Perfect example is the X9000, it does a really solid job of coming down between them and is more musically engaging than the 009BK and waaay more technically proficient than the NB Lambda, but it loses a bit of the secret sauce in either direction as a result. (On an unrelated note that's also my issue with the 009S vs the 009.)

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.

Yea I love the HD800. The 800S has something subtle but weird going on in its low end for me. I've seen a few explanations for why but I'm still not entirely sure. Still a great model though.

 

[SolarCetacean]

If I've never heard a track before, I hear it for the first time and there are details that I don't pick up on due to FR-induced auditory masking, I personally consider that "less resolving" even if technically everything is there.

I agree on the nature of detail. On any reasonably competent headphone, if I A/B looking for a certain detail, I'm going to find it. Because my brain is explicitly looking for that detail and will recognize what sounds make up that element. By analogy, if I showed someone a picture of the savanna and I told them there was a lion hiding in the grass, the viewer going to find that lion because they know it's there. But if I just showed them that picture and didn't tell them about the lion, would they have noticed it? It's effectively the same as camouflage; can you at a glance identify an object? Any camouflage falls apart if you look at it closely enough, but it's that first or passing glance where it matters.