The Stax thread (New)

[The Monkey]

The HD 800 is a technically superb headphone. It is proficient. And compared to the O2, it has no soul. That is all.

 

[Ridleyguy]

Having "soul" is a subjective criteria that probably means different things to different people, so it's difficult to compare in terms of headphones, but I think I know what you are saying.

If we set up a grid, it seems to me on Head-Fi that we have the extremes - the sound engineer types who want to hear the fly in the recording studio, and the bassheads, who want to feel the base and don't maybe care as much about transparency and detail, and everyone else somewhere in between. If that truly is the case, then it is understandable that there are then going to be significant differences in headphones preferences. The point I believe you are making though, is that the O2s do it all (I'm assuming transparency and detail are a given with Stax products), and that the HD800s are missing something - indefinable?.

 

[Ridleyguy]

I have an additional question, thinking about comments on the O2s, etc.

If Stax/electrostatic technology is superior to dynamics, why has this technology not scaled and replicated its success with floor-standing speakers? Yes, I have heard Quads (not SoundLabs though), but I don't believe, (correct me if I'm wrong), if any electrostatics are rated in the top 20 or even 50 (?) speakers in that category.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif All capacitors have a sound since they are in effect coloring the signal that goes through them. 100% linear they are not but saying they need to be run in for hundreds of hours makes no sense to me. I used to believe this but that was before I gained experience working with caps and hearing how they work and alter the sound. --- Custom Dynalo, B22, Dynahi, Auditor and a monster DHT amp with custom transformers. Headphones were fully stock with a multitude of sources, my APL, ML 30/31 stack, my AZ DAC1 plus some EMM labs gear. --- As for Warren Audio, you are aware that it is just cheap magnet wire in those cables right? That is the cheapest wire you can find at any electronics store to wind your own transformers, coils etc. Couple that with the fact that the idiot can't even solder and you've certainly got the combination of a true winner...

As for the WA cable - all I know is that it improves the resistance to sibilant recordings and warms up the bass a little, and it sounds a little better overall (to the degree that a cable can make a difference). I'm not done in my journey for an HD800 cable, but this is a good place to rest. I'm thinking about a Double Helix (brand), Blue Dragon, APS V3 or Jenna Labs cable, or maybe one of those Hyperion cables from Lee.

As for the Stax, I'm thinking about rolling tubes on the WES now. Has anyone here heard the WES with the Sophia 6SL7 matched quad from Woo? I think I'll leave the Shugang 50-Years Treasure 6CA7 tubes alone for now, but I think my 6SL7 are NOS RCA.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have an additional question, thinking about comments on the O2s, etc. If Stax/electrostatic technology is superior to dynamics, why has this technology not scaled and replicated its success with floor-standing speakers? Yes, I have heard Quads (not SoundLabs though), but I don't believe, (correct me if I'm wrong), if any electrostatics are rated in the top 20 or even 50 (?) speakers in that category.

Even large stat speakers have had the reputation of weakness in the areas of dynamics and bass. I do not know if the dynamics rap is still deserved, but bass will be a problem, probably because of very low xmax - diaphragm travel. Martin Logan uses a separate dynamic woofer.

Neither of these issues exist with well designed stat headphones. By the way, the Quads are legendary for their midrange being untouchable by dynamic speaker designs, just like Stax re: dynamic headphones.

Another issue with stat speakers might be (I don't know; I have not heard any recent models) diffuse imaging due to their generally huge transducer surface, as far from a point source as you can get. Again, not an issue with headphones. My personal opinion, based on a fifty plus year listening history, is that soundstage is very important to listeners right now but the extreme emphasis being place on it will be a passing fancy in the long run. The entire stereo imaging implementation is a clever trick to generate quasi realistic sound fields. It is not anything like the reality of live listening, but it fools our brains very well and works just fine. Exact replication of the natural sound field was never the goal and obsessing over perfecting it is an odd yet wrong headed quest. I don't think 5.1/7.1/whatever does a much better job. Still a simulation of reality, not reality itself.

If you have ever heard a really good vintage mono rig, you will notice that when you get close (at a particular distance) to the speaker, the spatial information appears. It is the brain filling in the necessary information, and that is what makes it work in stereo as well to an extent. If you are looking for errors in the soundstage, you will hear them because your brain will stop fooling you. It is like when the willing suspension of disbelief while watching a movie vanishes from the presence of some distraction. You are suddenly back to watching a screen instead of being immersed in the space that was in front of the camera.

Clark

 

[spritzer]

The Quad ESL57 is still one of the best speakers ever made, 55 years after it debuted. The Sound Lab models are clearly some of the best speakers you can get at any price but they require dedication since they are massive beasts which require a lot of clean power. The current Quads are also highly regarded and some studios even use them as recording monitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the Stax, I'm thinking about rolling tubes on the WES now. Has anyone here heard the WES with the Sophia 6SL7 matched quad from Woo? I think I'll leave the Shugang 50-Years Treasure 6CA7 tubes alone for now, but I think my 6SL7 are NOS RCA.

Have you tried loctal adapters yet? The 7f7 is the same tube and they are dirt cheap. I'm using some beautiful Philco (probably made by Sylvania) tubes in my ESX and I quite like them in this circuit.

 

[n3rdling]

In January 2000, the Quad ESL 57 was named the "Greatest HiFi Product of All Time" by HiFi News. Not bad.

 

[Ridleyguy]

Hmm ...only 10 years ago ...not bad!

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Quad ESL57 is still one of the best speakers ever made, 55 years after it debuted. The Sound Lab models are clearly some of the best speakers you can get at any price but they require dedication since they are massive beasts which require a lot of clean power. The current Quads are also highly regarded and some studios even use them as recording monitors. Have you tried loctal adapters yet? The 7f7 is the same tube and they are dirt cheap. I'm using some beautiful Philco (probably made by Sylvania) tubes in my ESX and I quite like them in this circuit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n3rdling /img/forum/go_quote.gif In January 2000, the Quad ESL 57 was named the "Greatest HiFi Product of All Time" by HiFi News. Not bad.

I have not tried anything else yet, including loctal adapters. Is there a particular 7f7 that you'd reccommend?

And stop making me miss my Quads.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... The point I believe you are making though, is that the O2s do it all (I'm assuming transparency and detail are a given with Stax products), and that the HD800s are missing something - indefinable?.

Not indefinable. There's a gritty sound to even the best dynamics, and the HD800 is the best dynamic I have heard. As I indicated earlier, I might find some features of the HD800 which were better than the 007 BHSE if I spent more time with them. Short of living with a set-up you can't be really sure about these things. However physicss tells me that electrostatic diaphragms must have an advantage in reproducing sound over a cone with a magnet attached.

 

[les_garten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm ...only 10 years ago ...not bad!

Have your ears "evolved" a lot in the last 10 years? Or the last 2000 for that matter...

Killer gear 10 years ago is still killer gear.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm ...only 10 years ago ...not bad!

'stat speakers are pretty regularly raved about in the various audiophile rags I read (the same as everyone else reads).

 

[Ridleyguy]

I am having a little fun here too, so please don't take that 10 year comment too seriously, although I know this is a Stax thread, ...but that still doesn't answer my question...are they even in the top 20? i.e compared to Wilson Audio, Dynaudio, NTT Audiolab, Acapella, Moon Audio - to name a few. These speakers are in $1 million plus systems.

 

[spritzer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have not tried anything else yet, including loctal adapters. Is there a particular 7f7 that you'd reccommend? And stop making me miss my Quads.

I don't think there were many versions of the 7f7 as it was never a popular tube. All were probably made by Sylvania.

 

[morphon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridleyguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am having a little fun here too, so please don't take that 10 year comment too seriously, although I know this is a Stax thread, ...but that still doesn't answer my question...are they even in the top 20? i.e compared to Wilson Audio, Dynaudio, NTT Audiolab, Acapella, Moon Audio - to name a few. These speakers are in $1 million plus systems.

I'm not sure this is a fair question. Any given transducer technology is not necessarily useful in all applications. Here's an example with which we can probably all agree:

Balanced Armature Transducers: They can do some amazing things because they have such miniscule moving mass. Good ones can, for example, reproduce square waves at 500hz. Since they are basically tiny boxes with a sound nozzle, they can be stacked up inside arbitrarily sized enclosures (i.e. custom IEM housings). They have their own sound chambers, so you can put several of them into a single housing without them stepping on each others' toes. Because you don't have a big radial transducer trying to do everything, the high end can be nearly free of any doppler effects - pure, smooth high frequencies. Yadda yadda.

And - they are totally useless for anything that isn't inside the ear canal AND has a nearly airtight seal. No earbuds, circumaurals, and forget about speakers ten feet away.

How about a reverse example - anyone had success making horn-loaded headphones? Take a look at the Triolon speakers - expensive, and well regarded.

In short, the availability or quality of a particular transducer technology for one application is not generalizable to other applications. The only one that has had success (though not always the best choice) in all applications is cone dynamics.