Jump to content


High Rollers
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About padam

  • Birthday 03/14/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Gender


  • Location
    Central Europe
  • Occupation
    Sales administratior
  • Hobbies
    Playing chess
  • Headphones
    Stax SR-Omega, SR-007 Mk1, SR-Lambda, SR-Lambda Pro, SR-Lambda Signature, SR-Lambda Nova Signature, SR-Sigma Pro, SR-Gamma Pro, SR-X MK3, Sennheiser HD250 Linear I, Sony Qualia 010
  • Headphone Amps
    KGSSHV Carbon, Stax SRM-T1W, CEC HD53N
  • Sources
    Lavry DA11
  • Other Audio Gear

Recent Profile Visitors

4,538 profile views

padam's Achievements

Extra Special Silver Diner

Extra Special Silver Diner (5/6)



  1. I am testing the Aeon 2 Noire at home (in balanced configuration, improves dynamics). I need to revise my opinion. The treble is a bit prominent (as graphs show), but that's not the problem. I inherently dislike how the bass is reproduced. A real shame, otherwise it would be quite nice. (Also unsure about the Harman Curve in general, maybe diffuse field is a more natural target for my ears.)
  2. Yeah, pretty much. Looking at the other side though, I find it interesting that even though the intent seems quite obvious, there were no repercussions. In football it would be a red card. (But of course he was playing wingman for a long time already.)
  3. Well, Sunday's race was eventful at least...
  4. Speaking of Fuji https://petapixel.com/2022/11/01/used-fujifilm-x100-series-camera-prices-are-surging-thanks-to-tiktok/
  5. I would be very careful to call the SR-007 any better than the SR-Omega, and vice versa. There are always multiple sides to these stories in audio. I'm not going to dispute the fact that the SR-007 was an absolutely great achievement, considering the limitations they had to deal with and with not much time to spare. They have common strengths and weaknesses and different tunings that may benefit a certain listener more than the other, a direct comparison would always favour one over the other as the ideal matching for them should be a bit different, etc. The common strengths are that they are generally easy to listen to with a wide range of musical material, and have a naturally full and open sound with powerful bass and masses of unforced detail. They are amazing headphones. But nothing is perfect as long as one is willing to analyze and compare deep enough to see, why a particular tuning is good or not. Common weakness is that they are both power hogs, the sound is leaning towards a bit of softness, a bit laid-back and distant in the midrange with instruments that can feel overly panned towards the sides (whenever I switch to Lambda, I can feel the sound getting smaller, but with better tactility and a lot of recordings just placed more naturally) and dynamics seem somewhat compressed compared to an SR-009 or SR-X9000 or the Sennheiser e-stats. That might not be a bad thing, this aspect can also make the sound busier, less peaceful, more fatiguing. I have the late version SR-Omega, which according to some sources might be closer to the SR-007 and not as forward as the earlier version (again, another set of advantages and drawbacks, not a question of better or worse) To my ears (and many others, who I showed these with some chain differences) the SR-007 Mk1 is hands down warmer and more coloured. It has more bass, more upper treble and more recession in the upper mids, and the mids themselves are tweaked to have more a 'liquid' quality to them that colour vocals in a unique way that can be very appealing. The SR-Omega seems a bit brighter, flatter, slightly drier (but not dry), but also smoother and cleaner for the most part, as the treble isn't as emphasized. The Carbon does manage to bring out a tiny, narrow peak somewhere in the lower treble, but for the most part, it is whisper clean, sweet and delicate. But again, is that how it "should" sound? You can be your own judge. Once again, just like I wrote last time, this manifests itself in two ways: either the SR-Omega seem a bit smoothened, rounded, less full, or the SR-007 Mk1 feels a bit more forceful and V-shaped. A good practical example is the Eagles album. Victim of Love is SR-007 territory, this is imho more in line with how it should sound. However, just by letting it go to the next, slower-paced song (Pretty Maids All in a Row) seems to render cleaner on the SR-Omega. The pacing is also different. The SR-007 Mk1 is faster in the midrange and treble, but bass is fatter and slower. The SR-Omega tempo is more unified: more mellow in the mids and highs but the bass is faster, cleaner. Still somewhat "dirty" compared to the SR-009 or SR-X9000, but those can feel thinner with too little volume - it seems these two aspects go right against each other with regard to tuning. So, once again, it just an individual opinion which of these is perceived as "faster" - or is that even better... Detail rendition is different again. If you listen to a solo organ for instance (Peter Hurford on the organ of the Church of Our Lady of Sorrows, Torronto, Canada Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor, BWV 582 1300), the SR-007 Mk1 is wonderful, able to render it with more nuance and detail, the focus is a real specialty. However, if you like more complex music with lots of elements and texture, the SR-Omega is able to edge it out, that's just one of its own specialties. I can also hear into the bass better. This is one thing by the way, where the SR-X9000 does deserve credit, being able to retrieve information, especially in bass lines, where with the SR-007 Mk1, it's just not there. Both copies are excellent. The reason why I personally prefer the SR-Omega is that it's more forgiving, not as dissolute, more predictable (the "Omega signature" maybe a little less prominent) in what's going to happen and I also prefer how it fits on the head. At times I feel I have an absurd number of driver crackling on the SR-007 Mk1, a testament to the perfect sealing, it does have some clamp to it, like two pillows pushed towards my head. I prefer the slightly imperfect seal of the SR-Omega and the fit is near-perfect and easily adjusted, no looseness and no clamping. If you are interested in other takes rather than my little pamphlets, you can dig out some more posts from other long-time members like elephas, n3rdling or 3x0, imho they've also made some great observations.
  6. So, as my soap opera story with the X9000 is coming to a close (for now), I have to correct a few things after I visited a friend yesterday. Originally, I wanted to hear it on analog, but due to a technical glitch it wasn't possible, I forgot that the Carbon only has XLR, I assume an XLR-RCA plug converter would have worked, but we didn't have one. Anyways, in some ways this was better, as I could listen to various recordings that I am more familiar with (and get annoyed by how much better they sounded compared to home). The test setup was the Linn Klimax Renew DS with the KGSSHV Carbon (also a cheap IC that might not completely suit the X9000, but the source did that, so it was fair). The experience with this DAC is much different. Now the Carbon can flex its muscles, the sound has also levelled up compared to the standard KGSSHV I carried last time, that was something that we agreed on. Before at home, when I pushed the volume to bring up the bass, it became strident and unpleasant. Remained clean this way. While at the start, I liked the 007 Mk1 most of the time, as we switched back and forth, my bias toward the old Stax house sound started to lessen, and I tended to gravitate more towards the X9000 on occasions, and appreciate more of what it was doing. It also took no prisoners in revealing what it's old nemesis is doing wrong, there is definitely a fair amount of leeway still to tweak the sound of that to a more optimal level, but it is always going to be more towards "romantic, sculpted", rather than "modern, engineered". These two headphones do seem to work quite well as a combination, because it's basically an either-or situation. Either the X9000 still sounded a bit bright, dry and analytical and just generally revealed things about certain recordings that weren't great. Or, even though it was possibly best the 007 Mk1 sound I heard, it was still too warm - coloured towards slightly V-shaped - soft and slow, particularly in the bass. The X9000 bass is much higher level, far ahead with regards to detail, if a bit too little at times. To be fair, most of the time I would have lowered the volume on the 007 to reduce the bass-heavy character with the Carbon, which made it a little tiresome this way. Simply enjoyable to listen to, if one gets used to it and stops analyzing - and if it is a question of which one to choose, it does give a much higher budget to the rest of the chain. There is a particular difference with male vocals, which sounded more accurate on the X9000. With female vocals, differences were still there, but seemed less exaggerated. The textures of each instrument are rendered incredibly on the X9000 with much higher dynamics, although in same cases, the more compressed 007 MK1 did seem to keep the music altogether better with more of that meaty fullness the 007 was designed for. One particular oddity about the X9000 that did not seem to change from what I had observed the first time, is that for me, it is weird to have a brighter sound but with high frequencies that are a bit subdued with too little sense of attack and decay. While the treble isn't perfect on the 007, it seemed to render much better. As soon as the music had "no treble", the X9000 instantly sounded way more impressive. Would they tweak this in the next evolution and potentially take a step backwards with regards to sheer resolution? I have my doubts. I might actually revisit the 009 at some point, maybe if I loose the rest of my sanity to trade up for a T2, which from my understanding is a little warmer than the more neutral Carbon. Obviously even brighter than the X9000, but I don't recall this problem, could be be a decent headphone to build upon that is not valued highly on the used market. I am personally not a big fan of this X9000 and 009 character in that I have to have a really solid, well-tweaked chain (maybe go full analog even), otherwise they just bother me. I can still scale back to the DA11+727 mod+007 Mk1 and enjoy a reasonably decent (highly compressed, muddied up, smaller scale) sound that is mostly free of brightness (rounding off the V-shape a bit). But on the other hand, they do incentivize tweaks chain that may take away a big amount of time and energy, but they can be also improve other headphones. I could have carried quite a few other headphones that would have sounded really great on this chain - will do this on the next occasion for sure. It was more of a question of comparing two headphones that sound great in different ways, rather than one being better than the other. So in the end, no matter what headphone you try to voice an opinion, you need to see it from all angles, which was part of my overly hostile attitude towards the X9000. On this occasion, I didn't listen to rock music, which I think is where it's just not the best at. The massive variability regarding the chain adds complications, but I just fail to sense that in most cases. I was just randomly sleuthing for opinions about the Qualia which I feel has arguably more interesting treble rendering with even more exaggerated, explosive dynamics than the X9000, but more pressing issues elsewhere), and I found this from Asr, whom I always enjoyed reading, basically why I bother writing these in the first place: "Er, I wouldn't call my SR-009 review "scathing" and if that's how you took it, then I clearly have to explain further. Most of the reviews I write are attempts at balanced counter-opinions (because nothing is perfect—I operate from the assumption that just about everything is subjectively flawed in some way), while "scathing" for me would be more like my review of the HiFiMan HE-400 where I had very few positive things to say about it. The SR-009 is a very good headphone by any consideration, and I was comparing it to the OII MKI, which for me was the closest ever that got to sonic perfection (but still missed the 100% mark in some key areas). If I'd compared the SR-009 to something like the HD800 on the GS-X, the review would've reflected way more positively in its favor." Then I also looked up some more and found this: "If you play an instrument (from the orchestra, that is), I think you'd find that the SR-007 would convey a much more natural & realistic tonality than the SR-009. I typically find that people who don't play an instrument but listen to classical music seem to prefer headphones like the SR-009, and other similar ones like the HD800, for their soundstaging (which isn't unsurprising, as they both do a credible job of reproducing "concert hall"-like imaging). So it depends on what you want from your listening of classical music—accurate tonality, or the concert hall soundstage? In contrast to the SR-009's concert hall, the SR-007 puts you on the stage with the orchestra, and pretty much right at the conductor's position. And of course, to get the most benefit from the SR-007 you need to pair it with the HeadAmp BHSE and a really good source component. The BHSE is overkill for the SR-009 though." This one I am not sure if I can agree with, since the 009 may need a different source than what the 007 may be happiest on and I feel like every Stax likes power. For instance, one could have a Carbon as the middle element, and then try to vary the other two things in tandem with each other. I was listening some classical tracks I auditioned with the HE90/HEV90 in 2016 and before that, an audio engineer gave me some explanations about how it "should" sound - which unfortunately I forgot a long time ago, but I do have some recollection about that sound as I continued using these tracks for evaluation. While the 007 had much more of that "vintage-like" resemblance to that sound than the X9000, compared to how I remember the HE90, it was heavier in the bass, less forward (more coloured in general) and even when supported by the Carbon, it was still a bit soft and not as dynamic. Once again, this is where the X9000 might have the lead over the HE90 - but again. that wasn't necessarily driven by amp that realises its full potential. In any case, on these "budgetary" Staxes, the music itself still sounded really excellent at the very least. Happy listening!
  7. This year, the two last ones on HF sold for 4000$ and 3500$ respectively (maybe a bit less)
  8. Camera (+lens) rant time There has been some talk about new vs old colours, which is also my problem, so I thought I'd just illustrate that with a candid portrait I shot last week. JPEG using one-click Auto settings on a free software, FastStone Image Viewer LR quick "edit" that I decided to stop after a few minutes: This is a near-ideal scenario regarding lighting, neither of them is perfect, but the way Lightroom renders skin tones is much worse, whatever profile I use. Tried other software and was similarly dissatisfied, Lightroom is at least is easy to use and they have added more controls, but difficult to figure out what to do, and I don't know how many years I still have to struggle until I figure out how to edit people images quickly (without people it can be abstract, so it may not matter much) and produce a satisfying result (with regards to colour specifically, with contrast I have figured out a bit, but curves affect colours, etc. it is difficult). If I saw the JPEG image (it pops up for a second when you open it, and it disappears just to troll you...and you might never get that colour back again) but I had the RAW flexibility, it would be perfect for me. I simply find this process unenjoyable and disappointing when compared against the JPEG image. I make the exposure good, in this case, I manage to nail perfect focus (very difficult on slightly a moving target and it takes away from your focus of trying to compose the image) and on the last stage it falls apart. In this instance, all I do is make it worse. Tried colour charts, etc. it still did not work. Maybe best for me to switch to JPEG whenever I can, and shoot it the best way I can in camera - and waste of a lot of performance that those massive 80MB+ DNG files are giving... I also don't understand why today's digital cameras can't adopt the way smartphones process images, more and more of them are producing nice, natural colours in a very wide range of lighting situations. I am not sure if I like using the SL2, but at least it is the only digital camera I have now, so I have to get used to it, maybe the image quality is growing on me. (not regarding ISO or dynamic range, but in-camera colour) Big and heavy, especially for old lenses, which are quite a bit lighter than what they make for the body, they are deliberately segmenting the product lines... But when I or whomever else looks at the screen or EVF, we all see some nice-looking images. If I was using a Sony or maybe to a lesser extent one the newer Canons, I would struggle even more. (Fuji anything but FF so I am not interested, sorry - but some of my lenses would work on medium format). I also appreciate how they have constantly tried to improve firmware, with the last one they have addressed vintage lens support even more (well, Panasonic cameras worked like that from the start...) I think I was most happy with the 5D Mark 1 or something more usable for me, the M Type 240 images and in daytime (a camera touted as not rendering colours as well as the M9 with a CCD) I think I could edit those pictures better as well as quicker (not a lot of latitude anyway...), and maybe I should go back to those just for that reason. But the SL2 shoots video as well with great IBIS (here the brick-like feel helps) which can be really useful, with L-Log the colour is half baked in, so I may work it out a bit better. Bonus: if you can figure out which lens was used from this picture, you are a gearhead like me, and we should all seek professional help. The reason why I made this terrible image is that after rambling incoherently in the Stax topic, I realised that I simply have way too much. (There are a few more somewhere...) But unlike with headphones, where at least I can have a preference for certain things, these are all great in their own right, so I would just like to use whatever is left and stick with it, although GAS is something that I will never ever get rid of because I started it from the wrong side. (And I have have two big repair bills coming both on the Canon and Leica lens and it is not all my fault, but it's ok, at least it also prompted me to think about this.) My best combo was the Leica M6TTL with the Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH Pre-FLE lens. It quickly made me very unhappy, that I sold both for way less than what they are worth now and maybe I should swallow all this, get rid of some unnecessary stuff and get back to it. I was talking to my sister the other day, and she told me how she really liked that picture - yes, it was shot on Delta 3200 film, no silly editing, just processed in a lab... The Praktica BX20s (yes it is the rarer version...) and its zoom lens really aren't worth that much last time I checked, so anyone interested in actually using them can have them for the cost of shipping. You just choose a film and you get the looked baked in (lenses render colour a bit differently, but it does not really matter if it is a cheap or an expensive film camera, film is film), it would be really nice to have Kodachrome, but and most of them are still just plain very nice and digital Leicas, Fujis, etc. do seem to have a little bit about that film mojo.
  9. Yeah, BHSE was best (it would have been so nice to have a Carbon there). But the stock 007tII (that can be further improved by simple mods) but wasn't exactly crapped on either considering its attributes. The stock 727 was poor because of the NFB design - which is again could be more synergistic with other Stax with its inferior design - at least way back on head-fi I read that a guy preferred the 717 with the 007 but he thought the 727 was fine with Lambdas. I thought of the 727 as being in sort of this "nowhere-land", being not as sweet as the hybrid amps and also not as much fun as a KGSSHV which instantly grabbed me when I heard it (I did not have a 007). But in my case, it seems quite appealing with the 007 Mk1 and the 007 Mk1 is quite appealing with the 727 even though I am sure this is very far from what it can really do. Omega vs 007 on Carbon is simply an unfair comparison both with regards to value and also with regarding matching. Tubes are great in that you can vary the sound - but it can be too late to think about that now, because they can cost insane amounts of money and I don't like the idea of limiting that aspect. I am genuinely curious if there will be more solid-state amps coming (maybe not as the Carbon is as good as KG can make it) or a proper T8000, tube input and ss output can still sound interesting. My listening preferences seems to be in line with liking vintage lenses or film photography. I don't like an "oversharpened" and artificially clean sound that lacks fluid and organic quality. The X9000 has this in spades. Others may think about this completely differently. Raal SR1a vs K1000 by Hirsch These small, yet important observations about new vs old headphones are just randomly put out on the internet.
  10. To add more to this 007 (whatever version...) saga, in a way all this actually helped me. Preface: we, as - preferably nice, humble - humans, should join forces and try and learn from each other. Even just regarding audio we experience and know things that others do not. And the frustrating thing is there is very information in one place and it might not be as valuable as experience, if you are lucky you find someone with close experience. A chain is not "ready-made". It is something that you figure out eventually, after finding out what sounds good and what not. And this even starts with the recording you play that someone else made and the software you use. All these tiny differences might add up to what you are hearing. If you don't start comparing getting a lot of placebo effects in the meantime (and just not enjoying not listening to music) you have very little idea about where you're actually at - in some ways fooling ourselves can be less distracting and more enjoyable... I'm guess being a musician or an audio engineer might help, they might have a better idea of how things should actually sound, that helped me a lot 10 years ago. Although I would add, that in the grand scheme of things, that is also just an another viewpoint that I should be taken into account as I said, people make recordings is various ways. I started 14 years ago, being completely clueless but at least I observed how people behave which steered me towards Stax and also this forum. Anyway, who cares about audio lesson cliches... I am on the modified 727 after some weeks with the Carbon. It's anything but a representation of a very accurate sound. I prefer this one. I listen to music. (while I observe a lot of things, this has become my main perspective) Why? The 007 is a power hog, how is this possible...? The Carbon is more neutral, has tons more power with better extension up and bottom, bigger stage, better dynamics, definition and all that jazz. So, with the 727 I am listening to a more compressed, I would say softer, brighter sound (but with warmth in the mids) with a smaller stage and some roll-off. (I feel that almost any Stax becomes too bright on this 727, basically nothing really works as well as this 007 Mk1.) However, the sound is 'simpler', more 'wholesome'. More cohesive, intimate and inviting and there is more focus and "beautifying" on the midrange which is a special 007 characteristic. Less can be more, which is why the NB Lambda is still a firm favourite of mine. Maybe it is just my brain getting bored by a certain sound and more interested in a different sound, but I don't think so. I had the 727, but for quite a while I didn't have a 007. (So basically, this lengthy post is only written, because I randomly have all this gear...) The Carbon does not "do much". It's a great amplifier. Works great with Lambdas (older ones), works great with the Omega and I might find more interesting matches. However, the characteristics it is giving to the 007 is making it more V-shaped and analytical. The stage becomes too big, there no coloration to fill in that upper midrange mid and upper treble emphasis and the flabby bass problem is actually more emphasized on the Carbon. (I was thinking of maybe trying different earpads, they definitely do their own contribution...) There is deep bass, but I think a bit too much and treble is the same. More does not equal better. So do I want throw (yet) more money at this to dial it more? Or rather: is this something that I myself created that wasn't there in the first place? A few notes about the Lavry DA11, which I still have many years on, partly because of being a cheapskate and partly because I am not the biggest fan of buying things blindly and I haven't found anything that I borrowed and think I must have this (Slightly missing the Parasound DAC1600HD, should have had that modified). In today's world, it is now a "semi-vintage" studio DAC. Does not add anything "magical" to the sound, that could be needed with a Carbon with certain headphones. However it does add a bit of fullness to the bass and "looseness" to the sound that I found more preferable with Stax headphones that can become "too clean", and there is nothing offensive in its presentation. Sort of a similar difference that you get regarding 727 vs Carbon. Unlike with headphones and amps I have very little clue about sources, and I don't want to screw up the synergy I achieved with the SR-Omega + Carbon either. I would like more richness in the mids and I can detect a slight bite in the treble but it is good enough for me. (Although I wonder how I will feel once I get the Carbon back from the normal bias modification and I switch back to this pairing...) I know Lavry makes the Quintessence, but it is super expensive and does not even have a USB input. Just to give you an example about synergy: with the SR-Omega + Carbon, stage is also overdone, but the headphones want to do it anyway, the Carbon just lets it do that, so it is not distracting, the bass is naturally very strong without cutting into anything else like on the SR-007, etc. etc. As much as I understand about why the amps are designed are how designed, some headphones just need more coloration to reel them back to "accuracy." (a quote I stole from a meet impressions, and it's very true) So in the future I hope to see some variations that are at the Carbon's power level but deliberately more tuned like the Stax amps. The X9000 needs plenty of tuning if you ask me... But it's also telling that people with T2s tend to like it more. So maybe it is not completely lost cause for me in the future when it gets cheaper on the market. But as Bob Katz said about the 009 "Why would you want to have a more expensive headphone that you might need tons of EQ to correct?" Well, to balance things out, I can answer that, because each headphone has particular characteristics that a chain will not change that much. That is exactly my personal worry about the X9000. The reason I am annoyed by it is just having a lot of generated hype by comparing it against other products that I personally don't like much either. If there was a balanced take on things, I would have no reason to be frustrated. The 007 Mk1 has simply matured enough that you can find all the good and bad about it. I hope to hear it in a maximised setting a BHSE is something that a lot of people rate (maybe against a maximised Omega, which might rather prefer what the Carbon provides) It can be a great everyday headphone. It has great natural ability, a few definitely just manage to edge out the SR-Omega without being silly expensive, threatened by reliability problems, etc... I just don't know how much money and tinkering etc. is needed to be thrown at it to keep the synergy and technicalities perfectly balanced - as all things should be. For about 3000$ all-in, this chain is not too bad (I would add my NB Lambda to have more brightness, but more firmness accuracy.) But maybe there is more to be extracted from this budget, that's where the knowledge comes into play (with personal preference). Probably not how it's supposed to sound on the 007 Mk1, too soft. But it captures the essence of the musical message, there is no distraction going on, it takes me back to a different time - so I like it.
  11. After my initial, not so smooth run... Tested in again in an improved system, also tried two cables, sources, amps. Within a day, I decided that I got angry enough to put an end to this, because brain burn-in won't work so well on this one. My opinion still stands. Either I simply fail to comprehend its sound, or Spritzer is just plain right. Very fast, textured, but bright and thin, lacking energy, unnaturally dry timbre (a lot of estat haters say that about many other modern models) with forced detail. The tangible difference against an Omega is maybe not more than 10-25% depending on the aspect, but when adding it all up, its massive. Its usage case is quite narrow, the recording needs to be quite specific. I have quite a few other oldie but goody Staxes as well, where trading in a fair amount of technicalities and FR balance will bring in more of that enjoyment factor. On a more positive note, I expected the Omega to act like an emerging superpower and raise its abilities. With the Carbon, it has done just that. Nothing wrong with this amp at all. Whatever chain this headphone needs, has to be very specific (warm, lush) - and even then, some character traits might not really change, so it might just still get a good old fashioned beating by others...
  12. It is like a slower, more relaxed, less coloured 404 with less of that upper-mid emphasis. A fair amount of resemblance to the SR-Omega without the technical virtues but for way less money. Surprisingly great synergy with the KGSSHV.
  13. https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/10/review-stax-sr-007-mk1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/eqoytw/stax_sr007_long_term_impressionsranty_review/ https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mini-review-stax-sr-009.635893/ Or I can repeat myself and say you can also try the Lambda Nova Signature instead, if you find that too bland, you might think the same about the 007. Might not seem very special at first (people tend to downplay Lambdas too much after trying flagships), but it's more dependable in a way it manages to skip a flaw that annoys me at times: the bass has similar pacing to the rest while the 007 plays it a bit slower, partially contributing to its fuller, punchier sound. The Nova has less body in the lower mids/upper bass, but does not have the recessed upper mids of the 007 that also contributes to its more polite character. If you don't hear the X9000 as I describe it sometimes, then the 007 might not make sense - but there are a handful of other options to choose from. I am struggling to dislike any Stax that I've tried that came out between 1975 and 1998 (didn't try the in-ears and a few lower-end Lambdas, I also don't yet know what the 4070 is all about) After that I fail to hear much it terms of improvement for me (the 007 Mk2.0 seems pretty close to the Mk1 at times, but not improved overall, the rest is new Stax which I'm not finding to match my taste)
  14. I'm missing the final part from the excerpt There are more vintage Staxes that are gathering dust right now instead of being kicked up in the back by a T2. From your description, may I suggest trying a Lambda Nova Signature one day. I think a good Lambda always has merit next to any Omega. The NB version will be forever my favourite. No matter how 'perfect' I can make an Omega sound, it's more about the grandiose, nuanced style with the full frequency range, rather than simplifying it even more, bringing it closer, putting yet more emphasis on musicality and 'relevant' detail. It is only the bass quality that I'm desperately missing from Lambdas and the tone feels a bit plasticky at times. The rest while impressing me a lot of the times, I don't necessarily feel that it makes the experience that much more appealing. Brightness is a relative term for me. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, some days I find the Lambda Signature very bright, at other times it sings beautifully when the 007 is too polite. The fast treble can annoy me (reminds me a bit of the X9000), but a lot of the times it just doesn't seem to matter. Not as dependable as the Nova, but very rewarding, involving, yet silky at the same time. The rest I might not recommend that much, having that damping does have its own quirks, although removing them is a possibility, I did it on the Lambda Pro, and it was overall a good improvement when driven by a Carbon. The SR-X Mk3 Pro seems to be the most successful damped design, my choice for the best small Stax, and I think it would also be amazing on a T2. (And yet it is still sitting unsold on head-fi, why...)
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.