That's cheating, you added a mass driver with the solar sail. Fun idea though to potentially stave off an alien invasion, just need to add some Nicky Minaj to the mix. Truth be told, I actually like a few of her songs, but it's an acquired taste.
I think the biggest contributors to the "electrostatic sound" are the tiny excursion and the relative lack of damping on the backwave.
I don't agree they have an unnaturally short decay...the ideal decay is no decay. The decay lasts on the recording and should last no longer than that.
When you guys say the older Stax sound more natural because they have thicker diaphragms, which older Stax in particular?
So here is the question, could you imitate the sound of a 007/009 by overdamping an ortho and articually reducing decay.
Quote from: n3rdling on May 26, 2014, 06:09:19 PMI think the biggest contributors to the "electrostatic sound" are the tiny excursion and the relative lack of damping on the backwave. I think the tiny excursion and the lack of damping on the backwave may contribute to low non-linear distortion.I think the "ethereal" signature is proly somewhat a result of a characteristic depression in the upper midrange, which might also be somewhat rough relative to other TOTL cans using a different driver technology.
The upper midrange depression may also contribute to the dimensional flatness because of the subdued directional queues found in that frequency range.The ethereality may be due to a number of factors and it should be noted that most people simply aren't used to stat-like presentation. Unless I go for a few weeks without listening to Stax I do not notice as much of a difference, likely because of conditioning.
A wormhole might still work for playing Led Zep with gravitational waves.
I don't agree with the notion that stats underachieve at microdynamics...at all. I think they actually excel in this area. I would have expected somebody to say that about their macrodynamics if anything.
I'm also with ship about "sub bass roll off" not being what causes their sound. Many don't have sub bass roll off, and like he said they have the same sound even when there's no sub bass at the time on the recording.
When you guys say the older Stax sound more natural because they have thicker diaphragms, which older Stax in particular? It's also not entirely true that the newer stuff uses thinner diaphragms. It has varied up and down between about 1 and 2 microns from the original Lambda to the current stuff. Another wrench the throw into that argument for some ears: the Orpheus uses a 1 micron diaphragm, as thin as anything Stax has ever used.I think the biggest contributors to the "electrostatic sound" are the tiny excursion and the relative lack of damping on the backwave.
Quote from: n3rdling on May 26, 2014, 06:09:19 PMI think the biggest contributors to the "electrostatic sound" are the tiny excursion and the relative lack of damping on the backwave. I think the tiny excursion and the lack of damping on the backwave may contribute to low non-linear distortion.I think the "ethereal" signature is proly somewhat a result of a characteristic depression in the upper midrange, which might also be somewhat rough relative to other TOTL cans using a different driver technology.As far as the sub-bass response, more than a classic roll-off I think Stax cans in general exhibit a sub-bass drop relative to the upper bass. Sub-bass is definitively there, but below the upper bass and indeed below most of the midrange. The upper treble is also there, but also below the upper bass, midrange, and some portions of the lower treble.This IMO translates into a sort of U-shapped (scooped) upper midrange, and a de-emphasised lower bass and treble. That is, to me, these cans are not w/o their characteristic coloration. They have their strengths of course.
Quote from: n3rdling on May 26, 2014, 06:09:19 PMI don't agree they have an unnaturally sho rt decay...the ideal decay is no decay. The decay lasts on the recording and should last no longer than that.Here you get into the question of monitoring equipment where the engineers reference is most likely a dynamic, especially for the bass. Even if the monitor is a filtered or servo'd high end sub you're still left with the room's resonance modes. The decay is short in comparison to the vast majority of the commonly used options and might not adequately compensate for the mix. If you're used to stats (i.e. they are your reference) and the recording you're listening to is binaural and mixed with something like the 4070, then you indeed get unparalleled performance.Quote from: n3rdling on May 26, 2014, 06:09:19 PMWhen you guys say the older Stax sound more natural because they have thicker diaphragms, which older Stax in particular? For me the revelation was a 2-3 micron DIY stat Frank had on loan from that head-fi maestro whose name escapes me.Quote from: Stapsy on May 26, 2014, 04:50:27 PMSo here is the question, could you imitate the sound of a 007/009 by overdamping an ortho and articually reducing decay. It's all about balance and getting the best sound relative to the starting point of the stock headphone. An overdamped ortho sounds like crap to me, though I think there are a few DIYers who prefer it that way.
I don't agree they have an unnaturally sho rt decay...the ideal decay is no decay. The decay lasts on the recording and should last no longer than that.
